1: \documentclass{mrlart2e}

2: \def\volno{7}

3: \def\yrno{2000}

4: \setcounter{page}{1}

5: \def\lpageno{26}

6: \overfullrule=5pt

7: \setlength{\textheight}{187mm}

8: 

9: 

10: %\documentclass{mrlart2e}

11: \usepackage{amssymb}

12: %\usepackage{theorem}

13: \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]

14: \newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}[section]

15: \newtheorem{corr}{Corollary}[section]

16: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[section]

17: \newtheorem{conj}{Conjecture}[section]

18: 

19: \theoremstyle{definition}

20: \newtheorem{defe}{Definition}[section]

21: 

22: \theoremstyle{remark}

23: \newtheorem{exam}{\bf Example}[section]

24: \newtheorem{cond}{Condition}[section]

25: \newtheorem{note}{\bf Note}[section]

26: \newtheorem{ntn}{\bf Notation}[section]

27: \newtheorem{ov}{\bf Overview}[section]

28: \newtheorem{rem}{\bf Remark}[section]

29: 

30: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

31: 

32: %\pagestyle{fancy}

33: %\lhead{Proof of the GGS Conjecture}

34: %\chead{}

35: %\rhead{}

36: %\rhead{Travis Schedler}

37: 

38: \def\peq{\underline{\prec}}

39: \def\tpq{\underline{\widetilde \prec}}

40: \def\tpr{\widetilde \prec}

41: \def\dnd{\text{\ does not divide\ }}

42: \def\dd{\text{\ divides\ }}

43: \def\sign{s}

44: \def\sab{s(\alpha, \beta)}

45: \def\kab{K_{\alpha,\beta}}

46: \def\pab{(\alpha, \beta)}

47: \def\qh{(q - q^{-1})}

48: \def\eab{e_{\beta} \otimes e_{-\alpha}}

49: \def\sp{\text{Span}}

50: \def\qs{$\qed$}

51: \def\O{\text{Ord}}

52: \def\R{\mathbb R}

53: \def\N{\mathbb N}

54: \def\Z{\mathbb Z}

55: \def\C{\mathbb C}

56: \def\Res{\text{Res}}

57: \def\o{\otimes}

58: \def\e{\varepsilon}

59: \def\RE{\text{Re}}

60: \def\Ug{U_q({\mathfrak g})}

61: \def\Id{\text{Id}}

62: \def\End{\text{End}}

63: \def\b{\mathfrak b}

64: \def\d{\text{deg}}

65: 

66: \def\h{{\mathfrak h}}

67: \def\g{{\mathfrak g}}

68: 

69: \begin{document}

70: 

71: 

72: \title{Proof of the GGS Conjecture}

73: \author{Travis Schedler}

74: \address{ 059

75: Pforzheimer House Mail Center, Cambridge, MA 02138.}

76: \email{schedler@fas.harvard.edu}

77: \thanks{Revision received September 19, 2000}

78: \maketitle

79: 

80: \begin{abstract}

81: We prove the GGS conjecture \cite{GGS} (1993), which gives a

82: particularly simple explicit quantization of classical $r$-matrices

83: for Lie algebras $\mathfrak{gl}(n)$, in terms of a matrix $R \in

84: Mat_n(\C) \o Mat_n(\C)$ which satisfies the quantum Yang-Baxter equation

85: (QYBE) and the Hecke condition, whose quasiclassical limit is $r$.

86: The $r$-matrices were classified by Belavin and Drinfeld in the 1980's in

87: terms of combinatorial objects known as Belavin-Drinfeld triples.  We

88: prove this conjecture by showing that the GGS matrix coincides with

89: another quantization from \cite{ESS}, which is a more general

90: construction.  We do this by explicitly expanding the product from

91: \cite{ESS} using detailed combinatorial analysis in terms of

92: Belavin-Drinfeld triples.

93: \end{abstract}

94: 

95: 

96: \section{Introduction} \label{intro}

97: In the 1980's, Belavin and Drinfeld classified solutions $r$ of the

98: classical Yang-Baxter equation (CYBE) for simple Lie algebras

99: $\mathfrak g$ satisfying $0 \neq r + r^{21} \in (S^2

100: \mathfrak{g})^{\mathfrak{g}}$ \cite{BD}.  They proved that all such

101: solutions fall into finitely many continuous families and introduced

102: combinatorial objects to label these families, Belavin-Drinfeld

103: triples (see Section \ref{bd}).

104: %This construction is given in Section \ref{bd}.

105: In 1993, Gerstenhaber, Giaquinto, and Schack attempted to

106: quantize such solutions for Lie algebras $\mathfrak{sl}(n).$ As a

107: result, they formulated a conjecture stating that certain explicitly

108: given elements $R_{\text{GGS}} \in Mat_n(\mathbb C) \otimes Mat_n(\mathbb C)$

109: satisfy the quantum Yang-Baxter equation (QYBE) and the Hecke relation

110: \cite{GGS}.  Specifically, the conjecture assigns a family of such

111: elements to any Belavin-Drinfeld triple of type $A_{n-1}$.  This

112: conjecture is stated in Section \ref{ggsss}.

113: 

114: Recently, Etingof, Schiffmann, and the author found an explicit

115: quantization of all $r$-matrices from the Belavin-Drinfeld list.  They

116: did so by twisting the coproduct in the Drinfeld-Jimbo quantum group

117: $U_q(\g)$.  For $\g=\mathfrak{gl}(n)$, one can evaluate the universal

118: $R$-matrix of the twisted $U_q(\g)$ in the vector representation of

119: $U_q(\g)$.  This gives an element $R_J$ of $Mat_n (\C) \o Mat_n(\C)$

120: which satisfies the QYBE and the Hecke relation.  This element is presented

121: in Section \ref{ptp}.

122: 

123: In this paper I show that the elements $R_J$ and

124: $R_{\text{GGS}}$ from \cite{ESS} and \cite{GGS}

125: coincide.  This proves the GGS conjecture. This is done

126: by explicitly expanding the formula for $R_J$ using

127: combinatorial techniques involving Belavin-Drinfeld

128: triples.  The proof occupies all of Section 2.

129: 

130: \begin{rem} Note that the GGS conjecture was proved in some special cases

131: (the Cremmer-Gervais and orthogonal disjoint cases) by Hodges in

132: \cite{H2} and \cite{H}.  The GGS conjecture was proved in some

133: additional cases (orthogonal generalized disjoint) by the author in

134: \cite{S2}.  Also, the disjoint case was completed in \cite{S2} by

135: Pavel Etingof and the author.

136: \end{rem}

137: 

138: \begin{rem}

139: The author actually found the matrix $R_J$ with the help of a computer

140: before the general twist given in \cite{ESS} was found.  The matrix

141: was constructed to coincide with the GGS matrix in many cases, and

142: motivated in part the general construction given in \cite{ESS}.  See

143: \cite{S} for details.  Also, many steps of this proof were motivated by

144: and checked with computer programs.

145: \end{rem}

146: 

147: 

148: \subsection{Belavin-Drinfeld triples} \label{bd}

149: 

150: Let $(e_i), 1 \leq i \leq n,$ be the standard basis for $\mathbb C^n$.

151: Let $\Gamma = \{e_i - e_{i+1}: 1 \leq i \leq n-1\}$ be the set of

152: simple roots of $\mathfrak{sl}(n)$.  We will use the

153: notation $\alpha_i \equiv e_i - e_{i+1}$.  Let $( , )$ denote the

154: inner product on $\mathbb C^n$ having $(e_i)$ as an orthonormal basis.

155: 

156: \begin{defe} \cite{BD}

157: A {\sl Belavin-Drinfeld triple of type $A_{n-1}$} is a

158: triple\linebreak

159: $(T, \Gamma_1, \Gamma_2)$ where $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2 \subset \Gamma$

160: and $T: \Gamma_1 \rightarrow \Gamma_2$ is a bijection, satisfying

161: two relations:

162: 

163: (a) $T$ preserves the inner product: $\forall \alpha, \beta \in

164: \Gamma_1$, $(T \alpha,T \beta) = (\alpha, \beta)$.

165: 

166: (b) $T$ is nilpotent: $\forall \alpha \in \Gamma_1, \exists k

167: \in \mathbb N$ such that $T^k \alpha \notin \Gamma_1$.

168: \end{defe}

169: 

170: Let $\mathfrak g = \mathfrak{gl}(n)$ be the Lie algebra of complex $n

171: \times n$ matrices. Let $\mathfrak h \subset \mathfrak g$ be the

172: subspace of diagonal matrices.  Elements of $\mathbb C^n$ define

173: linear functions on $\mathfrak h$ by $\bigl ( \sum_i \lambda_i e_i

174: \bigr) \bigl( \sum_i a_i\: e_{ii} \bigr)= \sum_i \lambda_i a_i$.  Let

175: $P = \sum_{1 \leq i,j \leq n} e_{ij} \otimes e_{ji}$ be the Casimir

176: element inverse to the standard form on $\mathfrak g$.  It is easy to see

177: that $P (w \o v) = v \o w$, for any $v,w \in \C^n$. Let

178: $P^0=\sum_i e_{ii} \o e_{ii}$ be the projection of $P$ to $\mathfrak h

179: \otimes \mathfrak h$.

180: 

181: For any Belavin-Drinfeld triple, consider the following equations for

182: $s \in \mathfrak h \wedge \mathfrak h$:

183: \begin{gather}

184: \label{tr02} \forall \alpha \in \Gamma_1,

185: \bigl[(\alpha - T \alpha) \otimes 1 \bigr] s = \frac{1}{2}

186: \bigl[(\alpha + T \alpha) \otimes 1\bigr] P^0.

187: \end{gather}

188: Belavin and Drinfeld showed that solutions $r \in \mathfrak{g} \o

189: \mathfrak g$ of the CYBE satisfying $r + r^{21} = P$, up to

190: isomorphism, are given by a discrete datum (the Belavin-Drinfeld

191: triple) and a continuous datum (a solution $s \in \h \wedge \h$ of

192: \eqref{tr02}).  We now describe this classification.

193: 

194: For $\alpha = e_i - e_j$, set $e_\alpha \equiv e_{ij}$.  Define

195: $|\alpha| = |j - i|$.  For any $Y \subset \Gamma$, set $\tilde Y =

196: \{\alpha \in \text{Span}(Y) \mid \alpha = e_i - e_j, i < j\}$ (the set

197: of positive roots of the subalgebra of $\mathfrak{sl}(n)$ having $Y$

198: as the set of simple roots). In particular we will often use the

199: notation $\tilde \Gamma, \tilde \Gamma_1, \tilde \Gamma_2$.  We extend

200: $T$ additively to a map $\tilde \Gamma_1 \rightarrow \tilde \Gamma_2$,

201: i.e.  $T(\alpha+\beta)=T \alpha +T \beta$. Whenever $T^k \alpha =

202: \beta$ for $k \geq 1$, we say $\alpha \prec \beta$.  Clearly $\prec$

203: is a partial ordering on $\tilde \Gamma$.  We will also use $\alpha

204: \peq \beta$ to denote $\alpha \prec \beta$ or $\alpha = \beta$.

205: Suppose $T^k \alpha = \beta$ for $\alpha = e_i - e_j$ and $\beta = e_l

206: - e_m$.  Then there are two possibilities on how $T^k$ sends $\alpha$

207: to $\beta$, since $T$ is an automorphism of the Dynkin

208: diagram. Namely, either $T^k(\alpha_i) = \alpha_l$ and

209: $T^k(\alpha_{j-1})=\alpha_{m-1}$, or $T^k(\alpha_i) = \alpha_{m-1}$ and

210: $T^k(\alpha_{j-1}) = \alpha_l$.  In the former case, call $T^k$ {\sl

211: orientation-preserving on $\alpha$}, and in the latter, {\sl

212: orientation-reversing on $\alpha$}.  Let

213: \begin{equation}

214: C_{\alpha,\beta} =

215: \begin{cases} 1, & \text{if $T^k$ reverses orientation on $\alpha$,}

216: \\ 0, & \text{if $T^k$ preserves orientation on $\alpha$.}

217: \end{cases}

218: \end{equation}

219: Now we define

220: \begin{gather}

221: a = \sum_{\alpha \prec \beta} (-1)^{C_{\alpha,\beta} (|\alpha|-1)}

222: (e_{-\alpha} \o e_\beta - e_{\beta} \o e_{-\alpha}),

223: \\ r_{st} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_i e_{ii} \o e_{ii} +

224: \sum_{\alpha \in \tilde \Gamma} e_{-\alpha} \o e_{\alpha}, \quad r = s + a +

225: r_{st}, \label{r}

226: \end{gather}

227: ($r_{st} \in \mathfrak{g} \o \mathfrak{g}$ is the standard solution

228: of the CYBE satisfying $r_{st} + r_{st}^{21} = P$.)  The element $r$ is the

229: solution of the CYBE corresponding to the data

230: $((\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,T), s)$.  It follows from \cite{BD} that any

231: solution $\tilde r \in \mathfrak{g}, \tilde r+\tilde r^{21} = P$ is

232: equivalent to such a solution $r$ under an automorphism of

233: $\mathfrak{g}$.

234: 

235: 

236: \subsection{The GGS conjecture} \label{ggsss}

237: The GGS conjecture suggests a quantization of the matrix

238: $r$ given in \eqref{r}, given by a matrix $R \in Mat_n(\C) \o

239: Mat_n(\C)$ conjectured to satisfy the quantum Yang-Baxter equation

240: (QYBE), $R^{12} R^{13} R^{23} = R^{23} R^{13} R^{12}$, and the Hecke

241: relation, $(PR - q)(PR+q^{-1}) = 0$.  This may be formulated and justified

242: as follows (which is more or less the original motivation).

243: 

244: If we write $R \equiv 1 + 2 \hbar r + 4 \hbar^2 t \pmod{\hbar^3}$,

245: where $q \equiv e^\hbar$, then we can consider the constraints imposed

246: by the QYBE and the Hecke relation modulo $\hbar^3$.  One may easily

247: check that the QYBE becomes the CYBE for $r$, while the

248: Hecke relation becomes the condition $t + t^{21} = r^2$.

249: Since it is not difficult to see that $r^2$ is symmetric,

250: the unique symmetric choice for $t$ is

251: $t = \frac{1}{2} r^2 = \frac{1}{2} (s^2 + (a + r_{st}) s + s (a +

252: r_{st}) + \varepsilon)$ where

253: \begin{equation} \label{eps}

254: \varepsilon = ar_{st} + r_{st} a + a^2.

255: \end{equation}

256: 

257: \begin{prop} \label{ggs1}

258: There exist unique polynomials $P_{i,j,k,l}$ of the form \\

259: $x q^y (q-q^{-1})^z, x,y \in \C, z \in \{0,1\}$ such that

260: $\sum_{i,j,k,l} P_{i,j,k,l} e_{ij} \o e_{kl} \equiv 1 + 2\hbar r

261: +2 \hbar^2 r^2 \pmod{\hbar^3}$.

262: \end{prop}

263: \begin{proof}  The proof is easy.  \end{proof}

264: 

265: \begin{defe} Define $R_{\text{GGS}} = \sum_{i,j,k,l} P_{i,j,k,l} e_{ij} \o

266: e_{kl}$, with the $P_{i,j,k,l}$ uniquely determined by Proposition \ref{ggs1}.

267: The matrix $R_{\text{GGS}}$ is called the GGS $R$-matrix.

268: \end{defe}

269: 

270: We will use the notation $x = \sum_{i,j,k,l} x_{ik}^{jl} e_{ij} \o

271: e_{kl}$ for elements $x \in Mat_n(\C) \o Mat_n(\C)$.  Define the 

272: following matrices:

273: 

274: \begin{equation} \label{brg}

275: \tilde a = \sum_{i,j,k,l} a_{ik}^{jl} q^{a_{ik}^{jl} \varepsilon_{ik}^{jl}}

276: e_{ij} \o e_{kl},

277: \quad \bar R_{\text{GGS}} = R_{st} + (q-q^{-1}) \tilde a,

278: \end{equation}

279: where

280: $R_{st} = q \sum_{i} e_{ii} \otimes e_{ii} +

281: \sum_{i \neq j} e_{ii} \otimes e_{jj} + (q - q^{-1}) \sum_{i>j} e_{ij}

282: \otimes e_{ji}$ is the standard Drinfeld-Jimbo solution to the QYBE,

283: which is a quantization of $r_{st}$.

284: 

285: \begin{prop}  The matrix $R_{\text{GGS}}$ equals $q^{s} \bar R_{\text{GGS}}

286: \, q^{s}$.

287: \end{prop}

288: 

289: \begin{proof} This is a straightforward computation. \end{proof}

290: 

291: \begin{rem} We see that $R_{\text{GGS}} \equiv q^{2r} \pmod{\hbar^3}$,

292: although $R_{\text{GGS}} \neq q^{2r}$ in general.

293: \end{rem}

294: 

295: \begin{conj}{\bf ``the GGS conjecture'' \cite{GGS}} \label{ggs}

296: The matrix $R_{\text{GGS}}$ satisfies the QYBE and the Hecke relation.

297: \end{conj}

298: 

299: \begin{rem} \label{or0} It is sufficient to check the QYBE for one value

300: of $s$ since the space of solutions to the homogeneous equation

301: corresponding to \eqref{tr02} is exactly the space $\Lambda^2

302: \mathfrak{l}$ where $\mathfrak{l} \subset \mathfrak{h}$ is the space

303: of all $x$ such that $(x,\alpha) = (x, T \alpha)$ for any $\alpha \in

304: \Gamma_1$.  Indeed, it is easy to see that $x \in \mathfrak{l}$

305: implies $[1 \o x + x \o 1, R_{\text{GGS}}] = 0$, and it follows that

306: $q^y R_{\text{GGS}} q^y$

307: satisfies the QYBE iff $R_{\text{GGS}}$ does, for any $y \in 

308: \Lambda^2 \mathfrak{l}$.

309: \end{rem}

310: 

311: \begin{rem}  Our formulation is from \cite{GH}, correcting

312: misprints.  The original formulation in \cite{GGS} is somewhat

313: different. We will write $x_{q^{-1}}$ to denote the matrix $x$ with

314: $q^{-1}$ substituted for $q$. Define $(x \o y)^T = x^T \o y^T$ where

315: $x^T$ is the transpose of $x$, for $x, y \in Mat_n(\C)$. Then, the

316: original form of $R_{\text{GGS}}$ can be written as follows:

317: \begin{equation}

318: R = q^{-s} \bigl( R_{st} + (q^{-1} - q) \tilde a_{q^{-1}}^T \bigr)

319: q^{-s}.

320: \end{equation}

321: We have $R_{\text{GGS}} - R^T_{q^{-1}} = q^{s} (q - q^{-1}) P q^{s} =

322: (q - q^{-1}) P$.  Thus, $R_{\text{GGS}}$ satisfies the Hecke relation

323: iff $R$ satisfies the Hecke relation.  In this case, we have $P

324: R^T_{q^{-1}} = (P R_{\text{GGS}})^{-1}$, so $R^T_{q^{-1}} =

325: (R_{\text{GGS}}^{-1})^{21}$, and thus $R$ satisfies the QYBE iff

326: $R_{\text{GGS}}$ does.  Thus, the two formulations are equivalent.

327: \end{rem}

328: 

329: \subsection{Passed $T$-pairs and a combinatorial formula for $\varepsilon$}

330: \label{ptp}

331: In this section we give a combinatorial formula for $\varepsilon$.

332: First let us introduce some definitions, which will be used in this

333: formula as well as in the proof of the main theorem.

334: 

335: \begin{defe}  A {\sl positive $T$-pair} is a pair $(T^k

336: \alpha, -\alpha)$  for $k > 0$.  We define the {\sl

337: order} to be

338: $\O(T^k \alpha, -\alpha) = k$.

339: The set of positive $T$-pairs is denoted $TP_+$.

340: \end{defe}

341: 

342: In Section 2, we will also define negative $T$-pairs, but so far we don't need

343: them.

344: 

345: \begin{defe}

346: If $\alpha = e_i - e_j \in \tilde \Gamma_1$ satisfies the property that

347: $T^k \alpha= e_j - e_{2j-i}$ for some $k > 0$, we say its

348: {\sl right-passing order} is $k$,

349: and denote it by $PO^r(\alpha) = k$.  If there is no such $k$, say

350: $PO^r(\alpha) = \infty$.  Similarly define {\sl

351: left-passing order}

352: $PO^l$.

353: \end{defe}

354: 

355: \begin{defe}

356: A positive $T$-pair $(\beta, -\alpha)$ is {\sl

357: right-passed} if\linebreak  $\O(\beta, -\alpha) >

358: PO^r(\alpha)$ and

359: $C_{\alpha,\beta} = C_{\alpha,PO^r(\alpha)}$.  We say that $(\beta,

360: -\alpha)$ is {\sl half right-passed} if $\O(\beta, -\alpha) =

361: PO^r(\alpha)$.  Similarly define the left versions, and we denote the

362: sets of all such $T$-pairs by $PTP_+^r, HPTP_+^r, PTP_+^l$, and

363: $HPTP_+^l$ (right-passed, half right-passed, left-passed, half

364: left-passed, respectively). The $+$ subscripts indicate positive

365: $T$-pairs.

366: \end{defe}

367: 

368: \begin{defe}

369: For a positive $T$-pair $(\beta, -\alpha)$, we define

370: $P^r(\beta, -\alpha)$ to be $1$ if $(\beta, -\alpha) \in PTP_+^r$,

371: $\frac{1}{2}$ if $(\beta, -\alpha) \in HPTP_+^r$, and otherwise $0$.

372: Similarly define $P^l(\beta, -\alpha)$.  It will be useful to define {\sl

373: symmetric} and {\sl anti-symmetric} versions: $P^s = P^r + P^l$, $P^a

374: = P^r - P^l$.

375: \end{defe}

376: 

377: This allows us to state a simple combinatorial formula for $\varepsilon$:

378: 

379: \begin{prop}  \label{fep} We may rewrite $\varepsilon$ as follows:

380: \begin{multline} \label{fe}

381: \varepsilon =\\ - \sum_{\alpha \prec \beta}

382: (-1)^{C_{\alpha,\beta} (|\alpha|-1)} \bigl[ P^s(\beta,

383: -\alpha) + C_{\alpha,\beta} (|\alpha|-1)

384: \bigr] (e_\beta \o e_{-\alpha} + e_{-\alpha} \o e_{\beta}).

385: \end{multline}

386: \end{prop}

387: 

388: \begin{proof} This is proved in Section \ref{es} and also follows

389: from the proof of the main theorem, Theorem \ref{mt} (see

390: Remark \ref{efr} for details). \end{proof}

391: 

392: \begin{corr} \label{frg} $\bar R_{\text{GGS}}$ is given as follows:

393: \begin{multline} \label{frge}

394: \bar R_{\text{GGS}} = \sum_{\alpha \prec \beta} (q -

395: q^{-1}) (-1)^{C_{\alpha,\beta} (|\alpha|-1)}

396:   \biggl[ q^{-P^s(\beta, -\alpha) - C_{\alpha,\beta}(|\alpha|-1)} 

397: (e_{-\alpha} \o

398: e_{\beta}) \\ - q^{P^s(\beta, -\alpha) +

399: C_{\alpha,\beta}(|\alpha|-1)} (e_{\beta} \o e_{-\alpha}) \biggr] + R_{st}

400: \end{multline}

401: \end{corr}

402: 

403: \begin{proof} Clear. \end{proof}

404: 

405: \begin{exam} \label{gcge} For a given $n$, there

406: are exactly $\phi(n)$ triples ($\phi$ is the Euler $\phi$-function) in

407: which $|\Gamma_1| + 1 = |\Gamma|$ \cite{GG}.  These are called

408: {\sl generalized Cremmer-Gervais} triples.  These are indexed by $m

409: \in \Z^+$, where $\text{gcd}(n,m) = 1$, and given by $\Gamma_1 =

410: \Gamma \setminus \{\alpha_{n-m}\}$, $\Gamma_2 = \Gamma \setminus

411: \{\alpha_m\}$, and $T(\alpha_i) = \alpha_{\text{Res}(i+m)}$, where

412: $\Res$ gives the residue modulo $n$ in $\{1,\ldots,n\}$.  For these

413: triples, there is a unique $s$ with first component having trace 0,

414: which is given by $s^{ii}_{ii} = 0, \forall i$, and

415: $s_{ij}^{ij} = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{n}\text{Res}(\frac{j-i}{m})$

416: for $i \neq j$ (this is easy to verify directly and is also given in \cite{GG}).

417: With this $s$, $R_{\text{GGS}}$ has a very nice combinatorial

418: formula, which was conjectured by Giaquinto and checked in some cases.

419: We now state and prove this formula.

420: \begin{prop} \label{gp} $R_{\text{GGS}}$ is given as follows for

421: generalized

422: Cremmer-Gervais triples:

423: \begin{multline} \label{gcgr}

424: R_{\text{GGS}} =\\ q^{s} R_{st} q^{s} + \sum_{\alpha \prec

425: \beta} (q - q^{-1}) \bigl[ q^{\frac{-2\O(\beta,

426: -\alpha)}{n}} (e_{-\alpha} \o e_\beta) -

427: q^{\frac{2\O(\beta, -\alpha)}{n}} (e_\beta \o e_{-\alpha}) \bigr].

428: \end{multline}

429: \end{prop}

430: \begin{proof} See Appendix A. \end{proof}

431: \end{exam}

432: 

433: 

434: \subsection{The ESS twist and the main theorem} \label{j1}

435: In \cite{ESS}, an explicit quantization is given for any classical

436: $r$-matrix described in Section \ref{bd}.  This is given by a twist of

437: the standard coproduct on the quantum universal enveloping algebra

438: $U_q(\mathfrak{g})$.  In particular, in the $n$-dimensional

439: representation, this gives an element $J \in Mat_n(\C) \o Mat_n(\C)$

440: so that $R_J = q^{s} J^{-1} R_{st} J^{21} q^{s}$ satisfies the QYBE

441: and the Hecke relation.  In fact, $J$ is triangular, i.e. $J = 1 + N$

442: and $N = \sum_{\alpha, \beta \in \tilde \Gamma} N_{\alpha,\beta}

443: \eab$.

444: 

445: Suppose we are given $T$ so that $\text{max}_{x \in TP_+} \O(x) =

446: m$. Define the following matrices:

447: 

448: \begin{gather}

449: J_k = 1 + \sum_{\beta = T^k \alpha} (-q)^{-C_{\alpha,\beta}(|\alpha|-1)}

450: q^{P^a(\beta, -\alpha)} (q-q^{-1}) \eab, \\ J = \prod_{i=1}^m J_i, \quad

451: \bar R_J = J^{-1} R_{st} J^{21}, \quad R_J = q^s \bar R_J q^s.

452: \end{gather}

453: 

454: \begin{thm} \label{esst}

455:   \cite{ESS} The element $R_J$ satisfies the QYBE and the Hecke

456: relation.

457: \end{thm}

458: 

459: Now, we state the main theorem of this paper:

460: 

461: \begin{thm} \label{mt} For any given $T$ and $s$, $R_J = R_{\text{GGS}}$.

462: \end{thm}

463: 

464: This theorem clearly implies the GGS conjecture.

465: 

466: \section{Proof of the main theorem} \label{pmt}

467: 

468: \subsection{$T$-quadruples}\label{es}

469: 

470: \begin{ov}

471: In this section we will introduce combinatorial objects and arguments

472: which are sufficient to prove the combinatorial formula for

473: $\varepsilon$ \eqref{fe}.  To do this, we wish to directly expand

474: \eqref{eps}.  This involves expanding a quadratic expression in terms

475: of the form $\eab$ and $e_{-\alpha} \o e_\beta$ for $\alpha \peq

476: \beta$.  Most of the monomials in the expansion are zero. Thus, the

477: first step is to restrict our attention to those that are not.  In

478: this vein, we define {\sl compatible $T$-quadruples} (Definition

479: \ref{ctd}). To further simplify the formula for $\e$, we will have to

480: show that most of these monomials cancel pairwise.  This is

481: accomplished with bijections $\phi, \psi, \psi^l,$ and $\psi^r$

482: (Definitions \ref{phd}-\ref{pssd}) between the corresponding

483: $T$-quadruples.

484: \end{ov}

485: 

486: \begin{ntn}  For all of section 2 we will not need

487: to refer to the dimension of the representation (formerly $n$), so we will

488: reuse $n$ for other purposes.

489: \end{ntn}

490: 

491: \begin{defe} For any subset $Y \subset \Gamma$, define $\bar Y = (\tilde Y

492: \cup -\tilde Y)$.

493: \end{defe}

494: 

495: %\begin{defe} For any pair $x \in \bar \Gamma \times \bar \Gamma$,

496: %let $\bar x$ be $x$ with the components

497: %transposed.  That is, $\overline{(a,b)} = (b,a)$.

498: %\end{defe}

499: 

500: \begin{sloppypar}

501: \begin{defe} Let $TP_- = \{(-\alpha,\beta) \in - \tilde \Gamma

502: \times \tilde \Gamma \ \vert\  \alpha \peq \beta \}$.   These

503: will be called {\sl negative $T$-pairs}.

504: We define $\O(-\alpha, T^k \alpha) = k$, and $P^*(-\alpha, T^k \alpha)

505: = P^*(T^k \alpha, -\alpha)$ for $* \in \{l,r,a,s\}$.

506: \end{defe}

507: \end{sloppypar}

508: 

509: \begin{note} For negative $T$-pairs, we allow the order to be zero,

510: but not for positive ones!

511: \end{note}

512: 

513: \begin{defe} For $x \in TP$, define $S_x = 1$ if $x \in TP_+$ and $S_x = -1$

514: if $x \in TP_-$.

515: \end{defe}

516: 

517: \begin{defe} We define $PTP_-^*$ and $HPTP_-^*$ just as in

518: the positive case, but with components in $T$-pairs

519: permuted.  Let $PTP^* = PTP_-^*

520: \cup PTP_+^*$ and $HPTP^* = HPTP_-^* \cup HPTP_+^*$.

521: \end{defe}

522: 

523: \begin{note}  Note that all passed elements must have positive order,

524: so there is nothing new in the case of negative passed $T$-pairs.

525: \end{note}

526: 

527: \begin{defe} For $x = (\beta, -\alpha) \in TP_+$, set $x_l =

528: \alpha$ and $x_h = \beta$ ({\sl lower, higher,}

529: respectively.)  For $x = (-\alpha,

530: \beta) \in TP_-$, similarly set $x_l = \alpha$ and $x_h =

531: \beta$.

532: \end{defe}

533: 

534: \begin{lemma} An element $x \in TP$ is uniquely given by $x_l, x_h$, and

535: the sign of $x$.

536: \end{lemma}

537: 

538: \begin{proof} This is obvious. \end{proof}

539: 

540: For convenience, we will often give elements $x \in TP$ in terms of

541: $x_l, x_h$, and the sign of $x$.

542: 

543: \begin{defe} For convenience, we will say that $PO^l(x) = PO^l(x_l)$ and

544: $PO^r(x) = PO^r(x_l)$ for $T$-pairs $x$.

545: \end{defe}

546: 

547: %\begin{ntn} In this paper, the natural numbers begin with $0$, i.e. $\N =

548: %\{0,1,\ldots\}$.

549: %\end{ntn}

550: 

551: \begin{defe}

552: For any pair $x = (\alpha,\beta) \in \bar \Gamma \times \bar \Gamma$,

553: define $E_x$ to be $E_x = e_\alpha \o e_\beta$.  We will, however,

554: only consider cases where $x = (e_i - e_j, e_k - e_l)$ and $i + k = j

555: + l$.

556: \end{defe}

557: 

558: \begin{lemma} \label{ql} Suppose $x_1,\ldots,x_n \in TP$.

559: Then, if $E_{x_1} \cdots E_{x_n} \neq 0$, then there is a unique $z

560: \in \bar \Gamma \times \bar \Gamma$ such that $E_z = E_{x_1} \cdots

561: E_{x_n}$. Namely, this is given by componentwise addition of all $x_i$.

562: \end{lemma}

563: 

564: \begin{proof} This follows from nilpotency. It is easy to see

565: that we need only show that $E_{x_1} \cdots E_{x_n} \neq e_{ii} \o

566: e_{jj}$ for any $i$ and $j$.  Equivalently, we have to show that the

567: componentwise addition of all $x_i$ is not $(0,0)$.

568: 

569: First, we generalize $\O$ and $\peq$.  Clearly,

570: every $\alpha \in \tilde \Gamma$ can be written as $\alpha =

571: \sum_{i=1}^m \alpha_{k_i}$ for some $k_i$.  We say that $\alpha

572: \tpq \beta$ for $\alpha, \beta \in \tilde \Gamma$ if $\alpha =

573: \sum_{i=1}^m \alpha_{k_i}$ and $\beta = \sum_{i=1}^m T^{l_i}

574: \alpha_{k_i}$ for nonnegative integers $l_i$.  In this case, we define

575: $\widetilde{\O}(-\alpha, \beta) = \widetilde \O(\beta, -\alpha) =

576: \sum_i l_i$.  Note that, when $x \in TP$, $\widetilde \O(x) = |x|

577: \O(x)$.

578: 

579: Now, we set $\widetilde {TP}_+ = \{ (\beta, -\alpha) \in \tilde

580: \Gamma \times - \tilde \Gamma \mid \alpha \underline{

581: \widetilde \prec}{ \beta}, \alpha \neq \beta \}$ and

582: $\widetilde {TP}_- = \{ (-\alpha, \beta) \in - \tilde \Gamma \times

583: \tilde \Gamma \mid \alpha \underline{\widetilde \prec} \beta \}$.  Let

584: $\widetilde {TP} = \widetilde {TP}_- \cup \widetilde {TP}_+ \cup

585: \{(0,0)\}$ and let $\widetilde \O(0,0) = 0$.  We see that componentwise

586: addition of two elements of $\widetilde{TP}$, if in $\bar \Gamma

587: \times \bar \Gamma \cup \{(0,0)\}$, yields another element of

588: $\widetilde{TP}$, where the orders are summed.  In particular, this

589: means that, when $x+y = (0,0)$, for $x, y \in \widetilde {TP}$, then $x

590: = y = (0,0)$.  Since $TP \subset \widetilde {TP}$, it follows that any

591: componentwise sum of elements of $TP$, if in $\bar \Gamma \times \bar

592: \Gamma$, yields a nonzero element of $\widetilde {TP}$. This is all

593: we need.

594: %Note that, actually, the sum of the $x_i$ must

595: %have positive order when $n > 1$ and $E_{x_1} \cdots E_{x_n} \neq 0$,

596: %since $E_x E_y = 0$ whenever $\O(x) = \O(y) = 0$.

597: \end{proof}

598: 

599: \begin{defe} Define $Q: TP^n \rightarrow TP \cup \{0\}$ as follows.

600: When $E_{x_1} \cdots E_{x_n} = E_z$, $z \in \bar \Gamma

601: \times \bar \Gamma$, for $x_i \in TP$,

602: $Q(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = z$.  Otherwise, $Q(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = 0.$

603: \end{defe}

604: 

605: We now apply these general definitions to the task of setting aside

606: the important subsets of $TP \times TP$.  These subsets

607: parameterize nonzero terms that arise upon expansion of $\e$.

608: 

609: \begin{defe} \label{ctd}

610: Define $CTQ, CTQ_s,$ and $CTQ_o$ ({\sl compatible $T$-quadruples of

611: same/opposite sign}) by

612: \begin{gather}\label{ctqd}

613: CTQ = \{ (x,y) \in TP \times TP \mid E_x E_y \neq 0\}, \\ CTQ_s =

614: CTQ \cap (TP_+ \times TP_+ \cup TP_- \times TP_-),

615: \\ CTQ_o = CTQ \cap (TP_+ \times TP_- \cup TP_- \times TP_+).

616: \end{gather}

617: \end{defe}

618: 

619: \begin{defe}

620: Define $CTQ_s^i, CTQ_s^c, CTQ_s^d$ ({\sl increasing, constant,} and

621: {\sl decreasing} in {\bf order}) by

622: \begin{gather}\label{ctqsd}

623: CTQ_s^i = \{ (x,y) \in CTQ_s \mid \O(x) < \O(y) \}, \\

624: CTQ_s^c = \{ (x,y) \in CTQ_s \mid \O(x) = \O(y) \}, \\

625: CTQ_s^d = \{ (x,y) \in CTQ_s \mid \O(x) > \O(y) \}.

626: \end{gather}

627: \end{defe}

628: 

629: \begin{lemma} For any $(x,y) \in CTQ_o$, $|x| \neq |y|$. \end{lemma}

630: 

631: \begin{proof} If $|x| = |y|$, then  it is clear from $(x,y) \in CTQ_o$

632: that $x = -y$, negating in each component.  But then $\O(x) = 

633: -\O(y)$, which is impossible.

634: \end{proof}

635: 

636: \begin{defe}

637: Define $CTQ_o^i$ and $CTQ_o^d$ ({\sl increasing} and

638: {\sl decreasing} in {\bf size}) by

639: \begin{gather}

640: CTQ_o^i = \{ (x,y) \in CTQ_o \mid |x| < |y| \}, \\

641: CTQ_o^d = \{ (x,y) \in CTQ_o \mid |x| > |y| \}.

642: \end{gather}

643: \end{defe}

644: 

645: \begin{note} $CTQ_o$ and $CTQ_s$ are partitioned into increasing and

646: decreasing quadruples by different criteria (size and order, respectively)!

647: It turns out that these criteria are the useful ones.

648: \end{note}

649: 

650: Now we define {\sl good} and {\sl bad} subsets of the sets we have defined.

651: 

652: \begin{defe}

653: \begin{gather}

654: GCTQ_s = \{(x,y) \in CTQ_s \mid \O(x)-\O(y) \dnd \O(x) \}, \\

655: GCTQ_o = \{(x,y) \in CTQ_o \mid |x| - |y| \dnd |x| \},

656: \end{gather}

657: and $BCTQ_* = CTQ_* \setminus GCTQ_*.$  Moreover, set

658: $GCTQ_{*_1}^{*_2} = GCTQ_{*_1} \cap CTQ_{*_1}^{*_2}$ and similarly for $BCTQ$.

659: \end{defe}

660: 

661: \begin{note} The definitions above are symmetric in the two components

662: of $T$-quadruples because $(a-b) \dd a$ iff $(a-b) \dd b$ iff $(b-a)

663: \dd a$ iff $(b-a) \dd b.$

664: \end{note}

665: 

666: %\begin{rem}

667: %Now, we would like to stress that there are a lot more nonzero terms

668: %that appear upon expansion of $\e$ than present on the right-hand side

669: %of \eqref{fe}.  This happens because, in the expansion of $\e$, there

670: %are many terms that occur twice: once with a plus and once with a

671: %minus.  Such terms, clearly, will cancel, and will not appear in the

672: %final answer.  Our job, therefore, is to specify every such term, and

673: %for each of them to find the other term that cancels with it.  To

674: %accomplish this, we introduce the following maps $\phi$, $\psi, \psi^l$, and

675: %$\psi^r$.

676: %\end{rem}

677: 

678: \begin{note} In the following definitions, particularly in the

679: orientation-reversing cases, it may not be completely obvious that the

680: maps have the images indicated (i.e. are well-defined).  See Proposition

681: \ref{qc} for well-definition.

682: %Well-definition will be seen in the proof of Proposition \ref{qc}.

683: \end{note}

684: 

685: \begin{defe} \label{phd}

686: We define $\phi: CTQ_o \rightarrow CTQ_s \cup PTP \cup HPTP_-$.  We

687: first consider the increasing case. Take $(x,y) \in CTQ_o^i$ and

688: suppose $x_l = e_j - e_{j+|x|}$, $x_h = e_k - e_{k+|x|}$, $y_l =

689: e_{k+|x|-|y|} - e_{k+|x|}$, and $y_h = e_j - e_{j+|y|}$.

690: Suppose that $|x| = p (|y|-|x|) + q$ for $0 \leq q < |y| - |x|$.  If

691: $q \neq 0$ (i.e. $(x,y)$ is good), then set $\phi(x,y) = (u,v)$ where

692: $u$ and $v$ have the same sign as $y$ and are given by

693: $u_l = e_{k+|x|-|y|+q} - e_k$, $u_h = e_{j+|x|} - e_{j+|y|-q}$,

694: $v_l = e_{k+|x|-|y|} - e_{k+|x|-|y|+q}$, and $v_h = e_{j+|y|-q} - e_{j+|y|}$.

695: In other words, $u$ and $v$ are the unique same-sign $T$-pairs such

696: that $|v| = q$ and $Q(u,v) = Q(x,y)$.  In the case that $(x,y)$ is bad,

697: we simply set $\phi(x,y) = Q(x,y)$.

698: 

699: In the good decreasing case, we take $(y,x) \in GCTQ_o^d$, set $q$ and

700: $p$ as above, and again let $\phi(y,x) = (v,u)$ where $v,u$ are the

701: unique $T$-pairs with the same sign as $y$ such that $|v| = q$ and

702: $Q(v,u) = Q(y,x)$. In the bad decreasing case, we again set $\phi(y,x)

703: = Q(y,x)$.

704: \end{defe}

705: 

706: \begin{defe} We define $\psi: CTQ_s \setminus CTQ_s^c \rightarrow CTQ_o$

707: as follows.  Take $(u,v) \in CTQ_s^i$. If $(u,v)$ is good, i.e.

708: $\O(v) - \O(u)$ does not divide $\O(u)$, then write $\O(u) = p [\O(v)

709: - \O(u)] + q$ for $0 < q < \O(v)-\O(u)$.  In the case $(u,v)$ is bad,

710: i.e. $\O(v) - \O(u)$ divides $\O(u)$, we again write $\O(u) = p [\O(v)

711: - \O(u)] + q$, this time choosing $q = 0$ when $(u,v) \in TP_- \times

712: TP_-$ and $q = \O(v)-\O(u)$ when $(u,v) \in TP_+ \times TP_+$. Then,

713: we define $\psi(u,v) = (x,y)$ where $y$ has the same sign as $u$ and

714: $v$, while $x$ has the opposite sign, and $x_l = (T^{q}+T^{q +

715: \O(v) -

716: \O(u)} + \ldots+T^{q+(p-1)(\O(v)-\O(u))})(u_l+v_l)+T^{\O(u)} v_l$,

717: $x_h = (T^{\O(v)-\O(u)} + T^{2[\O(v) - \O(u)]} + \ldots +

718: T^{p(\O(v)-\O(u))})(u_l+v_l)+T^{(p+1)(\O(v)-\O(u))} v_l$, $y_l =

719: (1+T^{\O(v)-\O(u)}+\ldots+T^{p(\O(v)-\O(u))})(u_l +

720: v_l)+T^{(p+1)(\O(v)-\O(u))} v_l$, and $y_h =

721: (T^q+T^{q+(\O(v)-\O(u))}+\ldots+T^{\O(u)})\linebreak (u_l +

722: v_l)+T^{\O(v)} v_l$.

723: 

724: In the case of decreasing quadruples, we begin with $(v,u) \in

725: CTQ_s^d$ and set $\psi(v,u) = (y,x)$, with $y, x, p,$ and $q$ all defined as

726: above.

727: \end{defe}

728: 

729: \begin{defe} \label{pssd} We similarly define $\psi^r: PTP^r \cup 

730: HPTP^r_- \rightarrow

731: CTQ_o^i$ and $\psi^l: PTP^l \cup HPTP^l_- \rightarrow

732: CTQ_o^d$. Suppose $v \in PTP^r \cup HPTP^r_-$. If $v$ is good,

733: i.e. $PO^r(v)$ does not divide $\O(v)$, we write $\O(v) = p\, PO^r(v) +

734: q$ for $0 < q < PO^r(v)$.  If $v$ is bad, i.e.  $PO^r(v)$ divides

735: $\O(v)$, we set $q = 0$ when $v \in TP_-$ and $q = PO^r(v)$ when $v

736: \in TP_+$, and again write $\O(v) = p\, PO^r(v) + q$.  Now, we define

737: $\psi^r(v) = (x,y)$ where $y$ has the same sign as $v$, $x$ has the

738: opposite sign, and $x_l = (T^{q} + T^{q + PO^r(v)} + \ldots +

739: T^{q + (p-1) PO^r(v)}) v_l, x_h = (T^{PO^r(v)} + T^{2PO^r(v)} + \ldots +

740: T^{p\, PO^r(v)}) v_l, y_l = (1 + T^{PO^r(v)} + \ldots + T^{p\, PO^r(v)}) v_l,$

741: and $y_h = (T^{q} + T^{q+PO^r(v)} + \ldots + T^{q+p\, PO^r(v)}) v_l$.

742: For $v \in PTP^l \cup HPTP^l_-$, we define $\psi^l(v) = (y,x)$, with

743: $y, x, p,$ and $q$ all defined as above.

744: \end{defe}

745: 

746: \begin{note} We had to define two separate maps $\psi^r$ and $\psi^l$ because

747: sometimes $HPTP^r_- \cup PTP^r$ and $HPTP^l_- \cup PTP^l$ intersect, and

748: $\psi^l$ and $\psi^r$ do not agree.

749: \end{note}

750: 

751: \begin{defe}  We say that a pair $x = (\beta, -\alpha) \in TP_+$ reverses

752: orientation if $C_{\alpha,\beta} = 1$, and in this case, we set $C_x =

753: 1$.  Otherwise $x$ preserves orientation and $C_x = 0$.  For negative

754: pairs $x = (-\alpha, \beta) \in TP_-$, we say $x$ preserves

755: orientation and $C_x = 1$ if $\alpha = \beta$; otherwise, we set $C_x

756: = C_{(\beta, -\alpha)}$ and say that $x$ preserves/reverses

757: orientation iff $(\beta, -\alpha)$ does.

758: \end{defe}

759: 

760: \begin{defe} Define $s_q, s: TP^n \rightarrow \Z[q,q^{-1}]$ as follows:

761: $s_q(x_1, \ldots, x_n) = (-q)^{-C_{x_1} (|x_1| - 1) - \ldots - 

762: C_{x_n} (|x_n| - 1)}$ and $s = s_1$.

763: \end{defe}

764: 

765: \begin{lemma} \label{nc} If $(u, v) \in CTQ_s^i$ then $u$ preserves 

766: orientation.  In the event $v$ reverses orientation, then $\O(u) < 

767: \frac{\O(v)}{2}$.

768: If $(x,y) \in CTQ_o^i$, then $y$ preserves orientation. In the event

769: $x$ reverses orientation, $|x| \leq \frac{|y|}{2}$.  The same results

770: hold considering $(v, u) \in CTQ_s^d$ and $(y, x) \in CTQ_o^d$,

771: respectively.

772: \end{lemma}

773: 

774: \begin{proof}  In the first case, if $u$ reversed orientation, then

775: $T^{\O(u)}(v_l) = v_h$, thus $\O(u) = \O(v)$ by nilpotency---this is a

776: contradiction.  On the other hand, when $v$ reverses orientation,

777: $T^{\O(v)-\O(u)}$ must reverse orientation, and thus by nilpotency

778: cannot be defined on all of $u_l + v_l$.  Thus $\O(v) - \O(u) <

779: \O(u)$, hence the desired result.  The second case follows easily from

780: nilpotency. \end{proof}

781: 

782: \begin{prop} \label{qc}

783: The maps $\phi \bigl|_{GCTQ_o}: GCTQ_o \rightarrow CTQ_s \setminus

784: CTQ_s^c$ and $\psi: CTQ_s \setminus CTQ_s^c \rightarrow GCTQ_o$ are

785: inverse to each other.  The maps $\phi \bigl|_{BCTQ_o^i}: BCTQ_o^i

786: \rightarrow PTP^r \cup HPTP^r_-$ and $\psi^r: PTP^r \cup HPTP^r_-

787: \rightarrow BCTQ_o^i$ are inverse to each other.  Finally, the maps

788: $\phi \bigl|_{BCTQ_o^d}: BCTQ_o^d \rightarrow PTP^l \cup HPTP^l_-$ and

789: $\psi^l: PTP^l \cup HPTP^l_- \rightarrow BCTQ_o^d$ are inverse to each

790: other.  All maps $\phi, \psi, \psi^r,$ and $\psi^l$ preserve $Q$ and $s_q$.

791: \end{prop}

792: 

793: \begin{proof}  The fact that the maps are well-defined,

794: inverse to each other, and preserve $Q$ is easy to see from

795: construction when orientations are preserved (it helps to draw a

796: picture).

797: Also, when orientations are preserved, $s_q$ is trivially

798: preserved.

799: 

800: So it remains to consider orientation-reversing cases.  Given $(x,y)

801: \in CTQ_o^i$, if orientation is reversed in $x$ or $y$, it can only be

802: reversed in $x$, and $|x| \leq \frac{|y|}{2}$ by Lemma \ref{nc}.  In

803: the case $|x| \neq \frac{|y|}{2}$, it follows that $\phi(x,y) = (u,v)

804: \in CTQ_s^i$, where $u$ preserves orientation, $v$ reverses

805: orientation, $|v| = |x|$, and $\O(y) = \O(u) < \O(v) - \O(u) = \O(x) +

806: \O(y)$.  So $s_q$ and $Q$ are preserved, and $\psi(u,v) = (x,y)$.  If,

807: instead, $|x| = \frac{|y|}{2}$, then $\phi(x,y) = v$, where $|v| =

808: |x|$, $v \in PTP^r \cup HPTP_-^r$, and $v$ reverses orientation.

809: Again, $s_q$ and $Q$ are preserved and $\psi^r(v) = (x,y)$.

810: 

811: Now consider an element $(u,v) \in CTQ^i_s \setminus CTQ_s^c$ in which

812: either $u$ or $v$ reverses orientation.  By Lemma \ref{nc}, only $v$

813: reverses orientation and $\O(u) < \frac{\O(v)}{2}$.  So, we get

814: $\psi(u,v) = (x,y) \in CTQ_o^i$ where $\O(u) = \O(y), \O(v) = 2 \O(y)

815: + \O(x), |x| = |v|, |y| = 2|v| + |u|$.  In this case, $x$ reverses

816: orientation and $y$ does not, so $Q$ and $s_q$ are preserved, and

817: clearly $\phi(x,y) = (u,v)$.  Finally, suppose $v \in PTP^r \cup

818: HPTP^r_-$ reverses orientation.  By definition, this means that

819: $T^{PO^r(v)}$ reverses orientation on $v$.  By nilpotency, $\O(v) < 2

820: PO^r(v)$, and it follows that $\psi^r(v) = (x,y) \in CTQ_o^i$.  We

821: then have $|x| = |v|, \O(v) = 2\O(y) + \O(x),$ and $PO^r(v) = \O(x) +

822: \O(y)$.  It follows that $x$ reverses orientation, and so $s_q$ and

823: $Q$ are preserved, and $\phi(x,y) = v$.

824: %Thus, $s_q$ and $Q$ are

825: %preserved, and $\phi(x,y) = v$.

826: 

827: The decreasing and left cases follow in exactly the same way as the

828: increasing and right cases.  \end{proof}

829: 

830: \begin{corr} \label{psq} Suppose $(x,y) \in CTQ_o^i$.  If

831: $\phi(x,y) = (u,v)$ and not all of $x,y,u,v$ preserve orientation,

832: then $x,v$ reverse orientation, $y,u$ preserve orientation, and

833: $|x| = |v|$. If $\phi(x,y) = v$ and not all of $v,x,y$ preserve orientation,

834: then $x,v$ reverse orientation, $y$ preserves orientation, and $|x| = |v|$.

835: The same facts hold under the assumptions $(y,x) \in CTQ_o^d$ with

836: $\phi(y,x) = (v,u)$ or $v$.

837: %, without changing any letters.

838: \end{corr}

839: 

840: \begin{proof} This follows directly from the argument above. \end{proof}

841: 

842: \begin{lemma} $\sum_{(x,y) \in CTQ_s^c} s(x,y) E_{Q(x,y)} =

843: \sum_{x \in TP} (1-|x|) s(x) C_x E_x.$

844: \end{lemma}

845: 

846: \begin{proof} Fix a choice of sign $\pm$ for this proof. Clearly,

847: whenever $E_x E_y \neq 0$, $\O(x) = \O(y)$, and $x,y \in TP_{\pm}$,

848: then $C_x = C_y = 1$.  In this case, $s(x) s(y) = -s(Q(x,y))$, as

849: $Q(x,y)$ also has reversed orientation and the same order as $x$ and

850: $y$.  It remains only to see that, for any $z \in TP_{\pm}$ with $C_z

851: = 1$, there are $|z|-1$ ways of writing $E_z = E_x E_y$ for $x,y \in

852: TP_{\pm}$, and they all are of this form.  The formula follows

853: immediately. \end{proof}

854: 

855: \noindent{\bf Direct proof of Proposition \ref{fep}.}  Set $b =

856: \sum_i e_{ii} \o e_{ii}$ and \\ $P_- = \sum_{i < j} e_{ji} \o

857: e_{ij}$, so that

858: $r_{st} = b + P_-$. Then, using $\phi$ and $\psi$,

859: \begin{multline}

860: a^2 + ar_{st} + r_{st}a = a^2 + a P_- + P_- a + \frac{1}{2} (a b + b a)

861: \\ = \sum_{(x,y) \in CTQ_s} s(x,y) E_{Q(x,y)} - \sum_{(x,y) \in CTQ_o} s(x,y)

862: E_{Q(x,y)}  - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{x \in HPTP} S_x s(x) E_x \\

863: = -\sum_{x \in HPTP_- \cup PTP} s(x) E_x + \sum_{(x,y) \in CTQ_s^c} 

864: s(x,y) E_{Q(x,y)}

865: - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{x \in HPTP} S_x s(x) E_x \\

866: %- \sum_{x \in HPTP_+} s(x)

867: %E_x \biggr) \\

868: = \sum_{x \in TP} (1-|x|) s(x) C_x E_x

869: - \sum_{x \in PTP} s(x) E_x - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{x \in HPTP} s(x) E_x.

870: \end{multline}

871: 

872: Equation \eqref{fe} follows immediately. \qs

873: 

874: \begin{rem} \label{efr} The combinatorial formula \ref{fe} for $\e$

875: also follows from the proof of Theorem \ref{mt}.  Namely, in the proof

876: we actually show that $R_J$ has the form of $R_{\text{GGS}}$ but we use

877: the combinatorial formula \eqref{fe} for $\e$ instead of the original one.

878: % with

879: %$\e$ replaced by the right-hand side of \eqref{fe}.

880: On the other hand, since the combinatorial formula \eqref{fe} is

881: symmetric, and because $R_J$ satisfies the QYBE and the Hecke

882: relation, $R_J$ must be the unique element satisfying the hypotheses

883: of Proposition \ref{ggs1} by the discussion in Section \ref{ggsss}.

884: % Theorem \ref{}

885: %

886: %$R_J$ is a quantization of $r$ \cite{ESS} with symmetric

887: %$\hbar^2$-component, we know that $R_J = R_{\text{GGS}}$ by the

888: %uniqueness Proposition \ref{ggs1}.  Alternatively, one can show with

889: %similar computations to the ones in the proof of Proposition \ref{fep}

890: %above that $\bar R_J \equiv 1 + 2 \hbar (r_s + a) + 2 \hbar^2 \e \pmod

891: %{\hbar^3}$.  In any case,

892: The proof of Proposition \ref{fep} above is, however, given for

893: pedagogical reasons and because the results used will be needed later.

894: %, and also because the combinatorics involved will

895: %be needed later anyway.

896: \end{rem}

897: 

898: \subsection{Passing properties of $T$-quadruples}

899: 

900: \begin{ov}

901: By {\sl passing properties} of a $T$-pair we mean information about

902: its left- and right-passing order.  In particular, usually we will be

903: concerned with whether a pair is (half) right- or (half) left-passed.

904: 

905: In this section, we will list all possible passing properties of

906: compatible increasing and decreasing quadruples, in connection with

907: those properties of their images under $\phi$ or $\psi$.  These results,

908: Lemmas \ref{pq} and \ref{ppp}, are essential in order to consider

909: quadratic terms which arise in the Hecke condition for

910: $R_{\text{GGS}}$, which are similar to those in the formula for

911: $\e$ but include powers of $q$ which depend on the passing

912: properties.  As a consequence of these results, one can prove the

913: Hecke condition for $R_{\text{GGS}}$ directly (see \cite{S2}).

914: \end{ov}

915: 

916: In order to prove these results, we will first need to develop some

917: more powerful combinatorial tools and notation regarding

918: Belavin-Drinfeld triples.  The combinatorics can best be pictured on

919: the Dynkin diagram for $\mathfrak{sl}(n)$.  We picture this diagram as

920: the line segment $[1,n]$ with integer vertices.  We then picture the

921: positive root $e_i - e_j$, for $1 \leq i < j \leq n$, as the line

922: segment $[i,j]$.  In this context, $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ can be

923: thought of as subsets of the graph consisting of the union of all the

924: length-1 segments which make them up, and maps $T$ are nilpotent

925: graph isomorphisms $\Gamma_1 \rightarrow \Gamma_2$.

926: 

927: \begin{defe} Assume $i < j$ and $k < l$.  We say $e_i - e_j < e_k - 

928: e_l$ if $i < k$ ($e_i - e_j$ is

929: to the left of $e_k - e_l$).  As subcases of this, we say that $e_i -

930: e_j \ll e_k - e_l$ for $j < k$, $e_i - e_j \lessdot e_k - e_l$ if $j =

931: k$, and $e_i - e_j \overline{<} e_k - e_l$ for $j > k$.  Similarly

932: define $>$ by $\alpha > \beta$ whenever $\beta < \alpha$, and the

933: same for $\gg, \gtrdot,$ and $\overline{>}$.

934: % by $x \overset{?}{>} y$

935: %whenever $y \overset{?}{<} x$, for each version $\overset{?}{<},

936: %\overset{?}{>}$ of $<, >$.

937: %\end{defe}

938: %

939: %\begin{defe}

940: If $\alpha \ll \beta$ or $\beta \ll \alpha$, then we say that

941: $\alpha \perp \beta$

942: %is orthogonal to $\beta$ or $\alpha \perp \beta$ (meaning

943: (meaning

944: there are orthogonal subsets $X,Y \subset \Gamma$ so that $\alpha \in

945: \tilde X$ and $\beta \in \tilde Y$).

946: %If $\alpha \lessdot \beta$ or

947: %$\beta \lessdot \alpha$, then we say that {\sl $\alpha$ is adjacent to

948: %$\beta$}.

949: %If $\alpha \overline{<} \beta$ or $\beta \overline{<}

950: %\alpha$, then we say that {\sl $\alpha$ overlaps with $\beta$}.

951: \end{defe}

952: 

953: Here and in the sequel we will make frequent use of the following key

954: combinatorial lemma:

955: 

956: \begin{defe} Take $\alpha \in \tilde \Gamma_1$.  Let $M_\alpha$

957: be the smallest positive integer such that $T^{M_\alpha - 1} \alpha

958: \in \tilde \Gamma_2 \setminus \tilde \Gamma_1$.  Let $c_\alpha$ be the

959: smallest positive integer less than $M_\alpha$ such that $T^{c_\alpha}

960: \alpha \not \perp \alpha$, if such an integer exists. Otherwise set

961: $c_\alpha = \infty$.  If $c_\alpha$ is finite and there is

962: a positive integer $d < M_\alpha$ which is not a multiple

963: of $c_\alpha$ satisfying $T^d \alpha \not \perp \alpha$,

964: then let $d_\alpha$ be the smallest such $d$. Otherwise

965: set $d_\alpha = \infty$.

966: \end{defe}

967: 

968: \begin{lemma} \label{c1} Suppose $\alpha \in \tilde \Gamma_1$

969: and $c_\alpha, d_\alpha < \infty$.  (i) For any positive integer $d <

970: M_\alpha$ such that $T^d \alpha \not \perp \alpha$, either $d$ is a

971: multiple of $c_\alpha$, or $d = d_\alpha$. (ii) $d_\alpha + c_\alpha -

972: \text{gcd}(c_\alpha, d_\alpha) \geq M_\alpha$ and $T^{d_\alpha} \alpha

973: \perp T^{c_\alpha} \alpha.$  \end{lemma}

974: 

975: \begin{proof}  Take some $d$ such that $T^d \alpha \not \perp \alpha$.

976: We show in the following paragraph that either $c_\alpha$ divides $d$,

977: or $c_\alpha + d - \text{gcd} (d, c_\alpha) \geq M_\alpha$ and $T^d

978: \alpha \perp T^{c_\alpha} \alpha$.  This proves the lemma---all that

979: remains is to see that, in the latter case, $d = d_\alpha$.  If,

980: instead, $d \neq d_\alpha$, then applying the above result also to

981: $d_\alpha$, we find that both $T^d \alpha$ and $T^{d_\alpha} \alpha$

982: are perpendicular to $T^{c_\alpha} \alpha$.  By space concerns on the

983: diagram, it follows that $T^d \alpha \not \perp T^{d_\alpha} \alpha$,

984: but then $T^{d - d_\alpha} \alpha \not \perp \alpha$, which would show

985: that $c_\alpha$ divides $d - d_\alpha$, in contradiction to $d_\alpha

986: + c_\alpha - \text{gcd}(c_\alpha, d_\alpha) \geq M_\alpha$.

987: 

988: So, take any $d$ such that $T^d \alpha \not \perp \alpha$, and assume

989: that $d$ is not a multiple of $c_\alpha$.  Define $f:

990: \{0,\ldots,{M_\alpha}-1\} \times \Gamma_1 \rightarrow \{-1,1\}$ by

991: $f(p, \alpha_i) = 1$ if $T^p$ preserves orientation on $\alpha_i$, and

992: $f(p, \alpha_i) = -1$ otherwise.  Define $g: \{0,\ldots,{M_\alpha}-1\}

993: \times \Gamma_1 \rightarrow \Z$ as follows. For any $1 \leq i \leq

994: n-1$ ($n$ is the length of the Dynkin diagram), let $q$ be given by

995: $T^p \alpha_i = \alpha_q$.  Then we define $g(p,\alpha_i) = q -

996: f(\alpha_i) i$. Define $F = f \times g$.  Clearly, $F$ is defined so

997: that if $Y \subset \Gamma_1$ is a connected segment of the diagram,

998: then $F$ is constant on $\{p\} \times Y$, for each fixed $p$, $0 \leq

999: p \leq M_\alpha - 1$.  Since $T^{ac_\alpha} \alpha \not \perp

1000: T^{(a-1)c_\alpha} \alpha$ for $ac_\alpha < M_\alpha$, it follows that

1001: $F$ is $c_\alpha$-periodic in the first component.  For the same

1002: reason, $F$ is $d$-periodic in the first component. If

1003: $d+c_\alpha-\text{gcd}(d, c_\alpha) < M_\alpha$, $F$ must be

1004: $\text{gcd}(d, c_\alpha)$-periodic in the first component.  This

1005: follows since

1006: $F(d+l,\alpha_i)=F(l,\alpha_i)$, $0 \leq l <

1007: c_\alpha-\text{gcd}(d,c_\alpha)$ implies $F(a,\alpha_i) =

1008: F(b,\alpha_i)$ whenever $a \equiv b \pmod{\text{gcd}(d,c_\alpha)}$, $0

1009: \leq a,b < {M_\alpha}$.  By minimality, $\text{gcd}(d, c_{\alpha}) =

1010: c_\alpha$, which is impossible.  Hence, $d + c_\alpha - \text{gcd}(d,

1011: c_\alpha) \geq M_\alpha$.  Furthermore, $T^d \perp T^{c_\alpha}$, because

1012: otherwise $T^{d - c_\alpha} \alpha \not \perp \alpha$, which would imply

1013: that $d - \text{gcd}(d, c_{\alpha}) \geq M_\alpha$ by the above results

1014: applied to $d - c_\alpha$, which is clearly contradictory.

1015: \end{proof}

1016: 

1017: \begin{corr} \label{c3}

1018: Suppose that $T^l(\alpha_i) = \alpha_{i+r}$ for $a \leq i < b$ where $r \leq

1019: b-a$ and $l > 0$.  Then for any $\alpha = e_{c} - e_{c+s}$, $\beta =

1020: e_d - e_{d+s}$, where $s \geq r$ and $a \leq c < d \leq b$, then

1021: $\beta \not \prec \alpha$, and $\alpha \prec \beta$ implies that

1022: $\O(\beta, -\alpha) = \frac{l(d-c)}{r}$.

1023: %T^{\frac{l(d-c)}{r}} \alpha = \beta$.

1024: 

1025: By reversing all directions, given $T^l(\alpha_i) = \alpha_{i-r}$, $a \leq i <

1026: b$, with $r \leq b-a$, then for any $\alpha = e_{c-s} - e_{c}$, $\beta

1027: = e_{d-s} - e_{d}$, where $s \geq r$ and $a \leq d < c \leq b$, then

1028: $\beta \not \prec \alpha$, and $\alpha \prec \beta$ implies

1029: $\O(\beta, -\alpha) = \frac{l(c-d)}{r}$.

1030: %a \Rightarrow

1031: %T^{\frac{l(d-c)}{r}} \alpha = \beta$.

1032: \end{corr}

1033: 

1034: \begin{proof}  First, it is clear that $r$ divides $c-d$ iff $T^{kl} \alpha

1035: = \beta$ for $k > 0$ an integer.  In this case, the theorem is

1036: satisfied; so suppose not.  By applying $T^{\pm l}$ some number of

1037: times to $\alpha$ or $\beta$, it suffices to assume $0 < d - c < r$.

1038: Now, if $T^l$ is defined on $\alpha$, then $\alpha < \beta < T^l

1039: \alpha$ together with the Lemma gives the desired result.  So assume

1040: $T^l$ is not defined on $\alpha$, and hence it is not defined on

1041: $\beta$ either.  Suppose $T^m \beta = \alpha$ for some positive

1042: integer $m$.  Write $\beta = e_i - e_j$.  Now, by applying $T^m$ some

1043: number of times to each $\alpha_p, i \leq p < j$, we can obtain

1044: $\alpha_q$ for some $a \leq q \leq b$, showing that $T^l$ is defined

1045: on $\beta$, which is a contradiction.

1046: %

1047: %$T^{k_p m}$

1048: %to $\alpha_p$ for appropriate positive Clearly we must have $m < l$. 

1049: But then $T^m$ is defined

1050: %on $e_a - e_b$, and then $T^m(e_a - e_b) \overline{<} e_a - e_b

1051: %\overline{<} T^l (e_a - e_b)$ with $T^m(e_a - e_b) \overline{<}

1052: %T^l(e_a - e_b)$, contradicting the Lemma.  So $\beta \not \prec

1053: %\alpha$.  Now, suppose $\alpha \prec \beta$ with $T^m \alpha =

1054: %\beta$. Then, again, $m < l$, and the Lemma easily implies $m =

1055: %\frac{l(d - c)}{r}$ by considering $e_a - e_b$ as before.

1056: The direction-reversed case is the same. \end{proof}

1057: 

1058: 

1059: \begin{defe}

1060: For convenience, let $EPTP^* = HPTP^* \cup PTP^*$ for any or no

1061: superscript $*$.

1062: \end{defe}

1063: \begin{defe}When $T^k$ acts on some segment of the Dynkin diagram

1064: (i.e. some subset of $\Gamma$) by sending $\alpha_i$ to

1065: $\alpha_{i+k}$, we say it acts by {\sl shifting to the right by $k$} when

1066: $k$ is positive, and by {\sl shifting to the left by $k$} when $k$ is

1067: negative.  In particular, on each segment, $T^k$ acts by {\sl shifting} iff

1068: orientation is preserved.

1069: \end{defe}

1070: 

1071: 

1072: 

1073: The next two lemmas summarize all of the possible passing properties

1074: of an opposite-sign quadruple and its image under $\phi$.

1075: 

1076: \begin{lemma} \label{pq} Take $(x,y) \in GCTQ_o^i$

1077: and

1078: $\phi(x,y) = (u,v)$.  Then

1079: exactly one of the following must hold:

1080: 

1081: \noindent

1082: $($a$)$ $P^l(v) = P^r(y) + P^l(x), P^l(y) = 0$ \\

1083: $($b$)$ $P^l(v) = P^l(y), P^l(x) = P^r(y) = 0$

1084: 

1085: Similarly, exactly one of the following must hold:

1086: 

1087: \noindent

1088: $($c$)$ $P^r(v) = P^r(x) + P^r(u), P^l(u) = 0$ \\

1089: $($d$)$ $P^r(v)=P^l(u), P^r(u) = P^r(x) = 0$.

1090: 

1091: These results, after interchanging superscripts of $l$ with $r$, also

1092:   hold when one considers $(y,x) \in GCTQ_o^d$ and $\phi(y,x) = (v,u)$,

1093:   instead of the original hypothesis.

1094: \end{lemma}

1095: 

1096: \begin{proof}

1097: Let $\O(v) = (k+1) \O(y) + k \, \O(x)$ and $\O(u) = k \,

1098: \O(y) + (k-1) \O(x)$ for some $k$ (which exists by construction).

1099: 

1100: Suppose that $v \in EPTP^l$.  We will analyze all possible cases by

1101: considering the value of $PO^l(v)$.  Write $PO^l(v) = p [\O(x) +

1102: \O(y)] + q$ where $q < \O(x) + \O(y)$.  First, I claim that $p \geq

1103: k-1$.  Suppose instead that $p < k-1$.  In this case, $k \geq 2$,

1104: which immediately implies from the proof of Proposition \ref{qc} that

1105: $T^{\O(x)+\O(y)}$ preserves orientation on $u_l + v_l$.  So $v$ preserves

1106: orientation, and by definition $T^{PO^l(v)}$ preserves orientation on $v$.

1107: %Next, we see

1108: %that $T^{PO^l(v)}$ preserves orientation; otherwise, $T^q$ would

1109: %reverse orientation on $T^{-\O(y)}(x_l)$, but then $T^q

1110: %T^{-\O(y)}(x_l)$ would intersect $T^{-\O(y)} (x_l)$, contradicting

1111: %nilpotency.

1112: Now, if we set $\omega = T^{-\O(y)} x_l$, we find that

1113: $T^q \omega \overline{<} \omega$ because $p < k$. Now, $k \geq 2$

1114: shows that $T^{\O(x)+\O(y)} \omega \overline{>} \omega$.  Finally,

1115: $T^{\O(x)+\O(y)} \omega \overline{>} T^q \omega$, because $p < k-1$.

1116: These facts, however, contradict Lemma \ref{c1}.

1117: 

1118: So, it must be that $p \geq k-1$.  We divide into the two cases, (1)

1119: $p = k-1$ and (2) $p = k$.

1120: 

1121: First consider the case $k = p-1$.  Set $t = k [ \O(x) + \O(y)] -

1122: PO^l(v)$.  Then we have three cases: (i) $t < \O(y)$, (ii) $t =

1123: \O(y)$, and (iii) $t > \O(y)$.  First consider (i).  Now, $T^t(y_l)

1124: \gtrdot y_l$, so $y \in PTP^r$.  Conversely, whenever $y \in PTP^r$,

1125: clearly $v \in PTP^l$ with $PO^l(v) = k[\O(x) + \O(y)] - PO^r(y)$ (we

1126: use that $y$ always preserves orientation).  In this case, $t < \O(y)$

1127: and $p = k-1$, as desired.  This situation, characterized by $v

1128: \in PTP^l, y \in PTP^r$, falls into (a) and we will call it (a1).

1129: 

1130: Next, take (ii). In this case, $PO^l(v) = k \, \O(x) + (k-1)

1131: \O(y)$, so $x \in HPTP^l$ and $y \in HPTP^r$.

1132: Conversely, it is clear that $y \in HPTP^r$ iff $x \in HPTP^l$ from the

1133: construction of $\phi$, and in this case, $v \in PTP^l$ with $PO^l(v)

1134: = k \, \O(x) + (k-1)\O(y)$.  Thus, $t = \O(y)$ and $p = k-1$, as desired.

1135: This is a different case of (a), so let us call it (a2).

1136: 

1137: Finally, consider (iii).  In this case, $0 < \O(x) + \O(y) - t <

1138: \O(x)$.  Set $t' = \O(x) + \O(y) - t = PO^l(v) - (k-1)[\O(x) +

1139: \O(y)]$.  Then it follows that $T^{t'} (x_l) \lessdot x_l$, so that $x

1140: \in PTP^l$ with $PO^l(x) = t'$.  Conversely, if $x \in PTP^l$, then $v

1141: \in PTP^l$ with $PO^l(v) = (k-1) [\O(x) + \O(y)] + PO^l(x)$, as

1142: desired (this can be checked separately when $x$ reverses

1143: orientation---here $k = 1$ so there is no difficulty.)  Hence, $t >

1144: \O(y)$ and $p = k-1$.   This is the final case of (a), so let us call it (a3).

1145: 

1146: Next, consider the case $k = p$.  Set $t = PO^l(v) - k[\O(x) +

1147: \O(y)]$.  Because $k = p$, it follows that $0 < t \leq \O(y)$, hence 

1148: $y \in EPTP^l$

1149: with $PO^l(y) = t$.  Since $PO^l(y) = \O(y)$ iff $PO^l(v) = \O(v) =

1150: (k+1)\O(y) + k \, \O(x)$, we have $P^l(v) = P^l(y)$. Conversely,

1151: whenever $y \in EPTP^l$, then $v \in EPTP^l$ with $PO^l(v) = PO^l(y) +

1152: k [\O(x) + \O(y)]$.  Hence, $p = k$ and $P^l(v) = P^l(y)$.  This

1153: accounts for case (b).

1154: 

1155: We have proved the first part of the Lemma, because we have considered

1156: all possible nonzero values of $P^l(v), P^l(x), P^l(y),$ and $P^r(y)$,

1157: and grouped them into the cases (a1), (a2), (a3), and (b).  We have shown

1158: that each of these is associated with different values of $PO^l(v)$,

1159: which justifies the zero values of $P^l(v), P^l(x), P^l(y),$ and

1160: $P^r(y)$ in each case.

1161: 

1162: Next, we apply the same analysis used in the first part to show that

1163: exactly one of (c),(d) holds.  Let $t = | PO^r(v) - \O(x) - \O(y) |$ and

1164: $\omega = v_l + u_l + T^{\O(x) + \O(y)} v_l$. We suppose that

1165: $v \in EPTP^r$ and divide into the cases

1166: $PO^r(v) > \O(x) + \O(y)$ and $PO^r(v) < \O(x) + \O(y)$.

1167: 

1168: First consider $PO^r(v) > \O(x) + \O(y)$. Then it is clear that $t

1169: \leq \O(u)$, with equality iff $v \in HPTP^r$. Now, $T^{t}$ is defined

1170: on $\omega$, and $T^t \omega \not \perp \omega$, so $T^t$ preserves

1171: orientation on $\omega$.  This shows that $T^t u_l \lessdot u_l$, so

1172: that $u \in EPTP^l$ with $PO^l(u) = t$.  That is, $P^l(u) = P^r(v)$.

1173: Conversely, whenever $u \in EPTP^l$, we know from the fact that $u$

1174: preserves orientation that $T^{PO^l(u)}$ preserves orientation on

1175: $u_l$, and hence that $P^r(v) = P^l(u)$ with $PO^r(v) =

1176: PO^l(u)+\O(x)+\O(y)$.  It is then clear that $PO^r(v) > \O(x) +

1177: \O(y)$.  This accounts for case (d).

1178: 

1179: Now, suppose that $v \in EPTP^r$ with $PO^r(v) < \O(x) + \O(y)$.  We

1180: divide into the cases $k \geq 2$ and $k = 1$.

1181: 

1182: First suppose $k \geq 2$. In particular, this implies that

1183: $T^{PO^r(v)}$ is defined on $\omega$, and by nilpotency, it must

1184: preserve orientation.  Also, $T^{\O(x)+\O(y)}$ must preserve

1185: orientation on $\omega$.  So, we see that $T^t u_l \gtrdot u_l$, thus

1186: $u_l \in PTP^r$ with $PO^r(u_l) = t$.  Conversely, if $k \geq 2$ and

1187: $u \in EPTP^r$, we see from $\omega \overline{<} T^{PO^r(u)} \omega

1188: \overline{<} T^{\O(x)+\O(y)} \omega$ and Lemma \ref{c1} that $PO^r(u)

1189: < \O(x)+\O(y)$.  It follows that $u,v \in PTP^r$ with $PO^r(v) = t$,

1190: and $PO^r(v) < \O(x)+\O(y)$, as desired.  This accounts for one

1191: situation of (c); call this (c1).

1192: 

1193: Next, suppose $k = 1$ and $PO^r(v) < \O(x) + \O(y)$.  We further

1194: divide into the three cases (i) $PO^r(v) < \O(x)$, (ii) $PO^r(v) =

1195: \O(x)$, and (iii) $PO^r(v) > \O(x)$.

1196: 

1197: In case (i), we use that $y$ preserves orientation to see that

1198: $T^{PO^r(v)}(x_l) \gtrdot x_l$, so that $x \in PTP^r$ with $PO^r(x) =

1199: PO^r(v)$.  Conversely, whenever $x \in PTP^r$, it follows that $k = 1$

1200: using Lemma \ref{c1}: otherwise we would have $T^{-\O(y)} x_l

1201: \overline{<} x_h \overline{<} T^{PO^r(x) - \O(y)} x_l$ with $T^{-\O(y)}

1202: x_l \lessdot T^{PO^r(x) - \O(y)} x_l$ while \\ $-\O(y) < PO^r(x) - \O(y) <

1203: \O(x)$.  Hence, $v \in PTP^r$ with $PO^r(v) = PO^r(x) <

1204: \O(x)$.  Call this situation (c3).

1205: 

1206: %This accounts for the same passing properties as (c1), but

1207: %with $k = 1$ instead of $k \geq 2$, so we call it (c1').

1208: 

1209: In case (ii), we have that $x, u \in HPTP^r$.  Conversely, whenever $x

1210: \in HPTP^r$, we must have $k = 1$ by Lemma \ref{c1}, and then $u \in

1211: HPTP^r$ and $PO^r(v) = PO^r(x)$, as desired.  If $u \in HPTP^r$, then

1212: it also follows from Lemma \ref{c1} considering $\omega$ that $k = 1$,

1213: and then $x \in HPTP^r$.  Call this situation (c2).

1214: 

1215: Finally, we consider case (iii).  Now, $PO^r(v) > \O(x)$ shows that

1216: $\O(x)+\O(y)-PO^r(v) < \O(y)$.  By nilpotency,

1217: $T^{t}$ must preserve orientation on $y_l$, and it

1218: follows that $u \in PTP^r$ with $PO^r(u) = t$.

1219: %\O(x)+\O(y) - PO^r(v)$.

1220: Conversely, if $u \in PTP^r$ with $k = 1$, then it follows that

1221: $PO^r(u) < \O(u) = \O(y)$, so\linebreak $T^{\O(x)+\O(y)-PO^r(u)}

1222: v_l

1223: \gtrdot v_l$.  Hence, $v \in PTP^r$ with $PO^r(v) = \O(x)+\O(y) -

1224: PO^r(u)$, and $\O(x) < PO^r(v) < \O(x)+\O(y)$.  This has the same

1225: passing properties as (c1), so call this situation (c1').

1226: 

1227: We have finished the second half of the Lemma, since we have accounted

1228: for all possible values of $P^r(u), P^l(u), P^r(v)$, and $P^r(x)$ in

1229: cases (d), (c1), (c1'), (c2), and (c3).  Each of these are associated

1230: with distinct values of $P^r(v)$ with rexspect to the $\O(x), \O(y),

1231: \O(u)$, and $\O(v)$, once $k$ is fixed.

1232: 

1233: To obtain the result for decreasing quadruples, simply reverse

1234: all directions and permute the components of all $T$-quadruples

1235: (not pairs!) in this proof.

1236: \end{proof}

1237: 

1238: \begin{lemma} \label{ppp}  Take $(x,y) \in BCTQ_o^i$

1239: and $\phi(x,y) = v$.  Then $v \in EPTP^r,\linebreak P^r(v) +

1240: P^r(x) = 1$, and exactly one of the following hold:

1241: 

1242: \noindent

1243: $($a$)$ $P^l(v) = P^r(y) + P^l(x), P^l(y) = 0$. \\

1244: $($b$)$ $P^l(v) = P^l(y)$, $P^l(x) = P^r(y) = 0$.

1245: %x \notin EPTP^l, y \notin EPTP^r$

1246: 

1247: Under the hypotheses $(y,x) \in BCTQ_o^d$ and $\phi(y,x) = v$, these

1248: results still hold upon interchanging superscripts of $l$ and $r$.

1249: \end{lemma}

1250: 

1251: \begin{proof} Clearly $v \in HPTP^r$ iff $x \in HPTP^r$.  Suppose $v

1252: \in PTP^r$.  Hence

1253: %By construction, we have

1254: $\O(x) \in \{PO^r(v),0\}$.

1255: Suppose for a contradiction that $x \in PTP^r$.  Then, $PO^r(x) <

1256: PO^r(v)$.  However, $x \overline{<} T^{PO^r(v)} x \overline{<}

1257: T^{PO^r(x)} x, x \lessdot T^{PO^r(x)}x$ and Lemma \ref{c1} imply that

1258: $PO^r(x) = \frac{PO^r(v)|x|}{|v|} > PO^r(v)$, a contradiction.  So,

1259: the identity $P^r(v) + P^r(x) = 1$ easily follows (since $v \in

1260: EPTP^r$).

1261: 

1262: The rest of the proof is almost exactly the same as the proof of the

1263: first part of Lemma \ref{pq}, getting rid of $u$.

1264: %, and instead

1265: %replacing $v$ with $v$.

1266: Again, the results follow with simple

1267: modifications in the decreasing case.

1268: \end{proof}

1269: 

1270: 

1271: \subsection{Repeated application of $\phi$ on larger collections of $T$-pairs}

1272: \begin{ov}  In this section, we consider the longer monomial terms that

1273: arise in the expansion of the formula for $R_J$.  As in the previous

1274: cases, most terms cancel; we therefore explicitly give the groupings

1275: which cancel (Corollary \ref{top}) or almost cancel, and show that

1276: what remains is simply $R_{\text{GGS}}$, proving

1277: Theorem \ref{mt}.  In order to do this, we need to define the notion

1278: of a $T$-chain, which generalizes $T$-quadruples to the objects needed

1279: to handle the longer monomials, and prove some more combinatorial

1280: results regarding these.

1281: \end{ov}

1282: 

1283: \begin{defe}

1284: A {\sl $n,m$ $TP$-chain} is a chain $x = (x_1,\ldots,x_n) \in TP_+^m

1285: \times TP_-^{n-m}$, so that $E_{x_1} \cdots E_{x_n} \neq 0$.

1286: Let $TPC_{n,m}$ denote the set of $n,m$ TP-chains.

1287: Let $TPC$ denote the set of all $TP$-chains,

1288: i.e. $TPC = \cup_{i > j} TPC_{i,j}$.

1289: \end{defe}

1290: 

1291: \begin{defe}  A chain $(x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in TPC_{n,m}$ is said to be

1292: {\sl outer} if\linebreak $\O(x_1) > \ldots > \O(x_m)$ and

1293: $\O(x_{m+1}) <

1294: \ldots < \O(x_n)$. Let $TPC^o_{n,m}$ denote the set of such

1295: $n,m$-chains, and let $TPC^o$ denote the set of all outer chains

1296: for any $n, m$.

1297: \end{defe}

1298: 

1299: \begin{note}

1300: Lemmas \ref{ail}-\ref{onp} below have obvious analogues

1301: %results

1302: obtained by changing

1303: the sign of all $T$-pairs, reversing the order of $T$-chains, and

1304: replacing $TPC_{n,m}$ with $TPC_{n,n-m}$ in all forms.  These results

1305: are not stated but will be referred to in the same manner as the actual

1306: results stated.

1307: %imply as the appropriate lemma.

1308: %by the lemma.

1309: \end{note}

1310: 

1311: \begin{lemma}   \label{ail}

1312: $($i\,$)$ Suppose $(x_1, x_2, x_3) \in TPC_{3,3}$.  Suppose

1313: $\psi(x_2, x_3) = (y_2, y_3)$ and $\psi(x_1,y_2) = (z_1,z_2)$

1314: where $(x_2, x_3), (x_1,y_2) \in CTQ_s^{d}$.  Then $\O(x_1) <

1315: \O(x_2)$ iff

1316: $\O(z_2) <

1317: \O(y_3)$, $\O(x_1) = \O(x_2)$ iff $\O(z_2) = \O(y_3)$, and $\O(x_1) >

1318: \O(x_2)$ iff $\O(z_2) > \O(y_3)$.

1319: 

1320: $($ii\,$)$ Suppose $(x_1, x_2) \in TPC_{2,2}$.  Suppose

1321: $\psi^l(x_2) = (y_2, y_3)$ and $\psi(x_1, y_2) = (z_1, z_2)$

1322: where $x_2 \in PTP^l$ and

1323: $(x_1, y_2) \in CTQ_s^d$.  Then $\O(x_1) ? \O(x_2)$ iff $\O(z_2) ?

1324: \O(y_3)$ for $?$ any order relation $=, <,$ or $>$.

1325: \end{lemma}

1326: 

1327: \begin{proof} The proof is the same for both (i) and (ii), does not mention

1328: $x_3$, and is given in the following paragraphs.

1329: First, we note that $\O(x_1) = \O(x_2)$ iff $x_1$ and $x_2$ reverse

1330: orientation, which is true iff $z_2$ and $y_3$ reverse orientation,

1331: which is true iff $\O(z_2) = \O(y_3)$.

1332: 

1333: Now, we show that $\O(x_1) < \O(x_2)$ implies $\O(z_2) < \O(y_3)$.  To

1334: reach a contradiction, suppose that $\O(x_1) < \O(x_2)$ and $\O(z_2) >

1335: \O(y_3)$.  By nilpotency, $x_1$ and $y_3$ preserve orientation.  Thus

1336: $z_2$ and $x_2$ also preserve orientation.  Write $\O(y_2) = p\, \O(z_1)

1337: + (p-1) \O(z_2)$.

1338: 

1339: First suppose $p \geq 2$.  Then $|z_2| > \frac{1}{2} |z_1|$, so that

1340: $T^{\O(z_1)+\O(z_2)}$ is defined on $(y_3)_h$ and therefore on

1341: $(y_3)_l$.  However, this implies that $T^{\O(y_3)+\O(z_1)}

1342: ((z_2)_l+(y_3)_l) \overline{>} (z_2)_l + (y_3)_l \overline{>}

1343: T^{\O(z_1)+\O(z_2)} ((z_2)_l+ (y_3)_l)$, while $T^{\O(y_3) + \O(z_1)}

1344: ((z_2)_l+(y_3)_l) \gtrdot T^{\O(z_1)+\O(z_2)} ((z_2)_l+(y_3)_l)$.

1345: This contradicts Lemma \ref{c1}.

1346: 

1347: So $p = 1$. Then $\O(x_1) = 2 \O(z_1) + \O(z_2)$ and $\O(y_2) =

1348: \O(z_1)$.  Since $\O(x_1) < \O(x_2)$, it must be that $\O(x_2) > 2

1349: \O(z_1) + \O(y_3) = 2 \O(y_2) + \O(y_3)$, which implies that $|y_3| >

1350: \frac{1}{2} |y_2|$.  So $T^{\O(y_2)+\O(y_3)} [(z_2)_l + (y_3)_l]

1351: \overline{<} (z_2)_l + (y_3)_l$.  Now, write $\O(z_1) + \O(z_2) = q [

1352: \O(y_2) + \O(y_3) ] + m$, for $0 \leq m < \O(y_2) + \O(y_3)$.  Since

1353: $\O(y_2) + \O(y_3) < \O(z_1) + \O(z_2) < \O(x_2) - \O(y_2)$, it

1354: follows that $T^{m} ((y_3)_l + (z_2)_l) \lessdot (y_3)_l + (z_2)_l$

1355: ($q = 1$) or $T^m ((y_3)_l + (z_2)_l) \overline{<} (y_3)_l + (z_2)_l$

1356: ($q > 1$).  By Lemma \ref{c1}, it follows that $c_{(y_3)_l + (z_2)_l}$

1357: divides both $m$ and $\O(y_2) + \O(y_3)$.  But then $c_{(y_3)_l +

1358: (z_2)_l}$ divides $\O(x_1) - \O(z_1)$ and $\O(x_2) - \O(z_1)$, which

1359: shows that $\O(x_1) > \O(x_2)$, contrary to assumption.

1360: 

1361: Next, suppose $\O(x_1) > \O(x_2)$.  We show $\O(z_2) > \O(y_3)$.

1362: Find $p$ and $q$ such that $\O(x_2) = (p+1) \O(y_2) + p\, \O(y_3)$ and

1363: $\O(x_1) = (q+1) \O(z_1) + q \, \O(z_2)$.  In this case, $\O(y_2) =

1364: q\, \O(z_1) + (q-1) \O(z_2)$.  Hence, $\O(x_2) = (p+1) q\, \O(z_1) +

1365: (p+1)(q-1) \O(z_2) + p\, \O(y_3)$.  By assumption, $(1 - pq) \O(z_1)

1366: + (p - pq + 1) \O(z_2) - p\, \O(y_3) > 0$.  Since $pq \geq 1$, this

1367: in particular implies that $\O(z_2) > \O(y_3)$, as desired.

1368: \end{proof}

1369: 

1370: \begin{lemma}  \label{ail2} $($i\,$)$ Suppose $(x_1, x_2, x_3) \in

1371: TPC_{3,1}$  with $|x_1| > |x_2| + |x_3|$ and \\ $\O(x_2) <

1372: \O(x_3)$.  Let

1373: $\psi(x_2,x_3) = (y_2,y_3)$ and suppose $\O(y_2) < \O(x_1)$.  Let

1374: $\psi(x_1,y_2) = (z_1, z_2)$.  Then $\O(z_2) < \O(y_3)$.

1375: 

1376: $($ii\,$)$ Similarly, suppose $(x_1, x_2) \in TPC_{2,1}$ with

1377: $|x_1| > |x_2|$ and $x_2 \in EPTP^r$.  Then set $\psi^r(x_2) =

1378: (y_2, y_3)$ and suppose $\O(y_2) < \O(x_1)$. Setting $\psi(x_1,

1379: y_2) = (z_1, z_2)$, it follows that $\O(z_2) < \O(y_3)$.

1380: \end{lemma}

1381: 

1382: \begin{proof}

1383: Again, parts (i) and (ii) have nearly the same proof, which follows.

1384: Suppose, on the contrary, that $\O(z_2) \geq \O(y_3)$.  Clearly

1385: $\O(z_2) \neq \O(y_3)$, else $y_3$ would have reversed orientation,

1386: which is not possible by Lemma \ref{nc}. So $\O(z_2) > \O(y_3)$.  Now,

1387: $T^{\O(x_1)}$ is defined on $(y_3)_l$ since, in case (i),

1388: $T^{\O(x_1)}$ is defined on $(x_2)_h$ and $(x_3)_h$, which follows

1389: from $|x_1| > |x_2|+|x_3|$, and in case (ii), $T^{\O(x_1)}$ is defined

1390: on $(x_2)_h$.  In particular, $T^{\O(z_2)}$ is defined on $(y_3)_l$.

1391: But now, $T^{-\O(z_1)}((y_3)_l+(z_2)_l) \overline{<}

1392: T^{\O(y_3)}((y_3)_l+(z_2)_l)$ but $T^{\O(z_2)} ((y_3)_l+(z_2)_l)

1393: \lessdot T^{\O(y_3)}((y_3)_l + (z_2)_l)$, contradicting Lemma

1394: \ref{c1}.

1395: \end{proof}

1396: 

1397: \begin{lemma} \label{pmol}

1398: Suppose $x = (x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4) \in TPC^{o}_{4,2}$ with $|x_2| <

1399: |x_3| + |x_4|$ and $|x_3| < |x_2| + |x_1|$.  Let $\psi(x_1, x_2) = (y_1,

1400: y_2)$ and $\psi(x_3,x_4) = (y_3, y_4)$. Then $|x_2| > |x_3|$ iff $(y_1,y_2,

1401: x_3, x_4) \in TPC^o$ and $|x_3| > |x_2|$ iff $(x_1, x_2, y_3, y_4) \in TPC^o$.

1402: \end{lemma}

1403: 

1404: \begin{proof} First we note that, if $|x_2| > |x_3|$, then $(y_1, y_2, x_3,

1405: x_4) \in TPC^o$, for the following reason.  Suppose $|x_2| > |x_3|$ and

1406: write $\phi(x_2, x_3) = (z_2, z_3)$ or $\phi(x_2, x_3) = z_3$, depending

1407: on whether $(x_2, x_3)$ is bad or good. Then $|z_2| + |z_3| < |x_4|$, so

1408: Lemma \ref{ail2} applies and shows that $\O(y_2) < \O(x_3)$, as desired.

1409: By symmetry, $|x_3| > |x_2|$ implies that $(x_1, x_2, y_3, y_4) \in TPC^o$.

1410: 

1411: So, it suffices to show that $|x_2| > |x_3|$ if $(x_1, x_2,

1412: y_3, y_4) \in TPC^o$ and $|x_3| > |x_2|$ if $(y_1, y_2, x_3, x_4) \in TPC^o$.

1413: By the symmetry of the situation, we need only prove the first.

1414: 

1415: Assume, for sake of contradiction, that $|x_3| > |x_2|$ and $(x_1,

1416: x_2, y_3, y_4) \in TPC^o$.  First suppose that $|x_1| + |x_2| > |x_3|

1417: + |x_4|$.  Then we note that $T^{-\O(x_2)}$ is defined on $(y_4)_l$

1418: because it is defined on $(x_3)_l$ and $(x_4)_l$.  Next we note that

1419: $T^{-\O(x_2)} (y_4)_l \overline{>} T^{-\O(y_3)} (y_4)_l$ because

1420: $|y_4| > |y_3| + |x_2|$.  Also, $T^{-\O(x_2)} (y_4)_l \not \perp (y_4)_h$,

1421: and $T^{-\O(y_3)} (y_4)_l \overline{<} (y_4)_h$. This contradicts

1422: Lemma \ref{c1}.

1423: 

1424: On the other hand, it is impossible that $|x_3| + |x_4| > |x_1| +

1425: |x_2|$.  If this were true, then it would follow that $T^{\O(x_2) +

1426: \O(x_3)}$ shifted $T^{-\O(x_2)} ((x_1)_h + (x_2)_h)$ to the right by

1427: $|x_3| - |x_2| < |x_1|$, while $x_1 \prec T^{-\O(x_2)} ((x_1)_h)$.

1428: This would contradict Corollary \ref{c3}.

1429: \end{proof}

1430: 

1431: \begin{lemma} \label{bps} Suppose $(x_1, x_2) \in TPC_{2,1}$ and $|x_1| >

1432: |x_2|$.

1433: Suppose further that $x_1 \in PTP^l$ and $\psi^l(x_1) = (y_1, y_2)$.

1434: Then $\O(y_2) < \O(x_2)$.

1435: \end{lemma}

1436: 

1437: \begin{proof}  Clearly $\O(y_2) = \O(x_2)$ would imply that $y_2, x_2,$

1438: and $x_1$ reverse orientation, which is not possible since $|x_1| >

1439: |x_2|$.  Suppose instead that $\O(y_2) > \O(x_2)$.

1440: We have that $T^{\O(x_1)}$, and hence $T^{\O(y_2)}$, is defined on

1441: $(x_2)_h$, and hence $(x_2)_l$.  Since $\O(y_2) > \O(x_2)$, we find

1442: that $T^{-\O(y_1)} [(x_2)_l + (y_2)_l] \overline{<} T^{\O(x_2)}

1443: [(x_2)_l + (y_2)_l] \gtrdot T^{\O(y_2)} [(x_2)_l + (y_2)_l]$,

1444: contradicting Lemma \ref{c1}.  So $\O(y_2) < \O(x_2)$. \end{proof}

1445: 

1446: \begin{lemma} \label{onp} Suppose $x = (x_1, x_2, x_3) \in TPC^o_{3,2}$ with

1447: $|x_2| < |x_3| < |x_1| + |x_2|$.  Then

1448: $x_2 \notin PTP^l$ and $x_3 \notin EPTP^r$.

1449: \end{lemma}

1450: 

1451: \begin{proof}  First, note that $T^{-\O(x_2)}$ is defined on

1452: $(x_3)_l$ since it is defined on $(x_2)_h + (x_1)_h$, and the former

1453: is a subset of the latter on the diagram.  If $x_2 \in EPTP^l$, then

1454: set $q = PO^l(x_2)$.  If $x_3 \in EPTP^r$ and $x_2 \notin EPTP^l$, set

1455: $q = \O(x_2) + \O(x_3) - PO^r(x_3)$.  In either case, $T^{q}$ is

1456: defined on $T^{-\O(x_2)} ((x_3)_l)$.  Indeed, $T^{\O(x_2) + \O(x_3)}$

1457: is defined on $T^{-\O(x_2)} ((x_3)_l)$, and $q < \O(x_2) + \O(x_3)$.

1458: Note that, by Lemma \ref{nc}, $x_3$ and $x_2$ must preserve

1459: orientation.  Hence, $T^q$ and $T^{\O(x_2) + \O(x_3)}$ must preserve

1460: orientation on $T^{-\O(x_2)}((x_3)_l)$.  Set $\omega = T^{-\O(x_2)}

1461: ((x_3)_l)$. We have $\omega \overline{>} T^{q} \omega \lessdot

1462: T^{\O(x_2) + \O(x_3)} \omega = (x_3)_h$, contradicting Lemma

1463: \ref{c1}. \end{proof}

1464: 

1465: 

1466: Now, we are ready to define maps $\Phi, \Psi_{\pm}, \Psi^r, \Psi^l,

1467: \Psi'$, and $\Phi'$ which parameterize terms which cancel in the

1468: expansion of $J^{-1} R_{st} J^{21}$ (given in Corollary \ref{top}).

1469: 

1470: 

1471: \begin{ntn} For any map $f$ taking two arguments, let $f^{i,j}$ be the

1472: map $f$ applied to the $i$ and $j$-th components of some larger

1473: $k$-tuple.  Similarly, for any map $g$ taking only one argument,

1474: define $g^{(i)}$ to be the map $g$ applied to the $i$-th component of

1475: a larger $k$-tuple.

1476: \end{ntn}

1477: 

1478: \begin{defe}  Define $\Phi: TPC^o_{n,m} \rightarrow TPC$ for $1 \leq m < n$ as

1479: follows.  For $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in TPC^o_{n,m}$, let $\Phi(x) =

1480: \phi^{m,m+1}(x)$.

1481: \end{defe}

1482: 

1483: \begin{defe} Define $\Psi_+: TPC^o_{n,m} \rightarrow TPC_{n,m-1}$ for

1484: $m \geq 2$ by $\Psi_+(x) = \psi^{m-1,m}(x)$.  For $m \leq n - 2$,

1485: define $\Psi_-: TPC^o_{n,m} \rightarrow TPC_{n,m+1}$ by $\Psi_-(x) =

1486: \psi^{m+1,m+2}(x).$

1487: \end{defe}

1488: 

1489: \begin{note}  Note that, unlike in the case of the map $\psi$ (i.e. the

1490: case of $2,m$ chains), we can have chains on which both maps $\Psi_+$

1491: and $\Psi_-$ are defined. We see, however, that in many cases (namely,

1492: the hypotheses of Lemma \ref{pmol}), only one map will yield an outer

1493: chain.

1494: \end{note}

1495: 

1496: \begin{defe} When $x = (x_1,\ldots, x_n) \in TPC_{n,m}$ and $x_m \in PTP^l$,

1497: $x$ is said to be {\sl left-passed}

1498: %or {\sl half

1499: %passed}, respectively,

1500: and we write $x \in LPC$.

1501: %or $x \in

1502: %HPC$.

1503: If $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in TPC_{n,m}$ and $x_{m+1} \in

1504: PTP^r$ or $HPTP^r$, then $x$ is said to be {\sl right-passed} or

1505: {\sl half-passed}, and $x \in

1506: RPC$ or $HPC$, respectively.

1507: %Set $PC_{n,m} = RPC_{n,m} \cup LPC$.

1508: \end{defe}

1509: 

1510: \begin{note} Note that, given $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in TPC_{n,m}$ with

1511: $n \geq m+1 \geq 2$, $x_m \in

1512: HPTP^l$ iff $x_{m+1} \in HPTP^r$, so in these cases the half-passed chains

1513: not only have a half right-passed pair but also a half left-passed pair.

1514: \end{note}

1515: %

1516: %simply defining {\sl half passed}

1517: %chains with no direction is sane.

1518: %\end{note}

1519: 

1520: \begin{sloppypar}

1521: \begin{defe} Define $\Psi^l: TPC^o_{n,m} \cap LPC \rightarrow

1522: TPC_{n+1,m}$ by

1523: $\Psi^l(x) =$ $(\psi^l)^{(m)} (x)$

1524: %, where $(\psi^l)^{(m)}$ indicates action in

1525: %the $m$-th component.

1526: Similarly, define $\Psi^r: TPC^o_{n,m} \cap

1527: (RPC \cup HPC) \rightarrow TPC_{n+1,m+1}$ by $\Psi^r(x) =

1528: (\psi^r)^{(m+1)} (x)$.

1529: \end{defe}

1530: \end{sloppypar}

1531: 

1532: As in the case of $\phi, \psi, \psi^*$, we have the following:

1533: 

1534: \begin{lemma} \label{PPi} Let $x, y \in TPC^o$. Then $x = \Phi(y)$ iff

1535: $y =\Psi_{\pm}(x)$ for some sign $\pm$ or

1536: $y = \Psi^*(x)$ for some superscript $* \in \{l,r\}$.

1537: \end{lemma}

1538: 

1539: \begin{proof}  This follows easily from Proposition \ref{qc}. \end{proof}

1540: 

1541: \begin{defe} A chain $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in TPC_{n,m}$

1542: is said to be {\sl negatively special} if $n \geq m+1 \geq 3$ and

1543: $|x_{m+1}| > |x_{m}| + |x_{m-1}|$.  The set of such chains is denoted

1544: $SPC_-$. Similarly, $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ is {\sl positively

1545: special} (or in $SPC_+$) if $n \geq m+2 \geq 3$ and $|x_{m}| >

1546: |x_{m+1}| + |x_{m+2}|$.  Set $SPC = SPC_+ \cup SPC_-$; the general

1547: term will be simply {\sl special}.

1548: \end{defe}

1549: 

1550: \begin{defe} A chain

1551: $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in TPC_{n,m}$ is said to be {\sl negatively

1552: reversed}

1553: %, for any $n,m$, such that

1554: if $3 \leq m+2 \leq n$ and $x_{m}$ and $x_{m+2}$ both reverse orientation.

1555: The set of such chains is $RC_-$.  A chain

1556: % Let $RC_+$ consist of

1557: %those

1558: $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in TPC_{n,m}$ is {\sl positively reversed}

1559: (or in $RC_+$)

1560: %, for any $n,m$, such that

1561: if $3 \leq m+1 \leq n$ and $x_{m-1}$ and $x_{m+1}$ both reverse

1562: orientation.  As before, $RC = RC_+ \cup RC_-$ is the set of {\sl

1563: reversed} chains.

1564: \end{defe}

1565: 

1566: \begin{lemma} \label{rcl} If $x \in TPC^o_{n,m} \cap RC$, then $(n,m) = (3,1)$

1567: or $(3,2)$. If $x \in TPC^o \cap RC$, then $\Phi(x), \Psi_{\pm}(x), \Psi^*(x)

1568: \notin TPC^o$ for any $\pm, *$.  In fact, if $x \in TPC^o \cap RC_+$,

1569: then $\Psi_-$ is not defined on $x$, and $\Psi_+(x) = (y_1, y_2, y_3)

1570: \in TPC_{3,1}$ satisfies $\O(y_2) = \O(y_3)$.  Additionally, $\Phi(x)

1571: = (z_1, z_2, z_3) \in TPC_{3,3}$ or $\Phi(x) = (z_1, z_2) \in

1572: TPC_{2,2}$ where $\O(z_1) = \O(z_2)$.

1573: 

1574: Similarly, if $x \in TPC^o \cap

1575: RC_-$, then $\Psi_+$ is not defined on $x$, and $\Psi_-(x) = (y_1,

1576: y_2, y_3) \in TPC_{3,2}$ satisfies $\O(y_1) = \O(y_2)$.  Additionally,

1577: $\Phi(x) =\linebreak (z_1, z_2, z_3) \in TPC_{3,0}$ or $\Phi(x) = 

1578: (z_2, z_3) \in

1579: TPC_{2,0}$ where $\O(z_2) = \O(z_3)$.

1580: \end{lemma}

1581: 

1582: \begin{proof} This easily follows from Lemmas \ref{nc} and \ref{psq}. 

1583: \end{proof}

1584: 

1585: \begin{corr} \label{rs} No outer chain is both reversed and special. \end{corr}

1586: 

1587: \begin{proof} Clear. \end{proof}

1588: 

1589: \begin{defe} We define maps $\Psi', \Phi': TPC^o \cap RC \rightarrow TPC^o$ as

1590: follows. If $x \in RC_- \cap TPC^o$ where $\Psi_-(x) = (y_1, y_2,

1591: y_3)$, set $\Psi'(x) = (Q(y_1, y_2), y_3) \in TPC_{2,1}$.  If $\Phi(x)

1592: = (z_1, z_2, z_3)$, set $\Phi'(x) = (z_1, Q(z_2, z_3)) \in TPC_{2,0}$,

1593: and if $\Phi(x) = (z_2, z_3)$, set $\Phi'(x) = (Q(z_2,z_3)) \in

1594: TPC_{1,0}$.  Similarly, if $x \in RC_+ \cap TPC^o$ where $\Psi_+(x) =

1595: (y_1, y_2, y_3)$, set $\Psi'(x) = (y_1, Q(y_2, y_3)) \in TPC_{2,1}$.

1596: If $\Phi(x) = (z_1, z_2, z_3)$, set $\Phi'(x) = (Q(z_1, z_2), z_3) \in

1597: TPC_{2,2}$, and if $\Phi(x) = (z_1, z_2)$, then set $\Phi'(x) =

1598: (Q(z_1, z_2)) \in TPC_{1,1}$.

1599: \end{defe}

1600: 

1601: \begin{lemma}  \label{pg1} (i) Take $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in

1602: TPC^o_{n,m} \cap SPC_{\pm}$ for some fixed sign $\pm$.  Then

1603: $\Psi_{\pm}(x) \in TPC^o$ or $\Phi(x) \in TPC^o$, but not both.

1604: In the former case, $\Psi_{\pm}(x) \in SPC_\pm$ as well.

1605: 

1606: (ii) If $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in TPC^o_{n,m} \setminus SPC$,

1607: for $(n,m) \notin \{(1,0), (1,1), (2,1)\}$, then either (a) $\Psi_+(x)

1608: \in TPC^o$, (b) $\Psi_-(x) \in TPC^o$, or (c) neither.  In case (c),

1609: $x \in RC$.  In case (a), $\Psi_+(x) \in SPC$, and in case (b),

1610: $\Psi_-(x) \in SPC$.

1611: 

1612: (iii) If $x \in TPC^o_{n,m} \cap [LPC \cup HPC \cup RPC]$, then $x \in

1613: SPC$.  Additionally, $\Psi^l(x) \in TPC^o \cap SPC_+$ if $x \in SPC_+ \cap

1614: LPC$ and $\Psi^r(x) \in TPC^o \cap SPC_-$ if $x \in SPC_- \cap [RPC \cup HPC]$.

1615: \end{lemma}

1616: 

1617: \begin{proof}  (i) This follows immediately from Lemma \ref{ail} in the

1618: cases that $m \geq 2, x \in SPC_+$ and $m \leq n-2, x \in SPC_-$.

1619: (Note that it is impossible to have $x \in RC$ by Corollary \ref{rs}.)

1620: In the case that $m = 1$ and $x \in SPC_+$ or in the case that

1621: $m = n-1$ and $x \in SPC_-$, it is

1622: clear that $\Phi(x) \in TPC^o$.

1623: 

1624: (ii) It follows that only one of the $\Psi_{+}(x), \Psi_{-}(x)$ can be

1625: in $TPC^o$ from Lemma \ref{pmol}.  If $x \in RC \cap TPC^o$, then no

1626: $\Psi_{\pm}(x)$ is outer by Lemma \ref{rcl}.  By Lemma \ref{pmol}, if 

1627: $n \geq 4$, there is nothing to prove. If $n = 3$ and $x \notin RC$, 

1628: then Lemma \ref{ail2} gives the desired result.  For $n = 2$ the 

1629: result is easy.

1630: 

1631: (iii) The two statements follow from Lemmas \ref{onp}, \ref{bps},

1632: respectively. \end{proof}

1633: 

1634: \begin{defe} We define the following subsets of $TPC^o$: \\

1635: (a) $C_a = \{x \in SPC \cap TPC^o \mid \Phi(x) \notin TPC^o \}$ \\

1636: (a') $C_b = \{x \in SPC \cup TPC_{2,1} \mid x, \Phi(x) \in TPC^o \}$ \\

1637: (b) $C_c^{\pm} = \{x \in TPC^o \setminus [SPC \cup RC] \mid

1638: \Psi_{\pm}(x) \in TPC^o \}$\\

1639: 

1640: Furthermore, let $C_a^{\pm} = C_a \cap SPC_{\pm}$, $C_b^{\pm} = C_b

1641: \cap SPC_{\pm}$, and $C_c = C_c^+ \cup C_c^-$.

1642: \end{defe}

1643: 

1644: \begin{lemma} \label{ds} The subsets $C_a, C_b, C_c, RC \cap TPC^o,

1645: TPC_{1,1},$ and

1646: $TPC_{1,0}$ are disjoint and their union is all of $TPC^o$.

1647: \end{lemma}

1648: 

1649: \begin{proof}

1650: That $C_a, C_b$, and $C_c$ are disjoint from $RC$ follows from

1651: Corollary \ref{rs}, Lemma \ref{rcl}, and the definition, respectively.

1652: The other facts regarding disjointedness are obvious.  To check that

1653: the union is all of $TPC^o$, we apply Lemma \ref{pg1}.ii, which shows

1654: that $C_c = TPC^o \setminus [SPC \cup RC \cup TPC_{1,1} \cup TPC_{1,0}

1655: \cup TPC_{2,1}]$. It is clear, though, that $TPC_{2,1} \subset C_b$.

1656: This proves the desired result. \end{proof}

1657: 

1658: \begin{lemma} \label{ctc}

1659: $($i\,$)$ For each choice of sign, $\Psi_{\pm}$ maps $C_a^{\pm}

1660: \cup C_c^{\pm}$ injectively to $C_b^{\pm}$.   \\

1661: $($ii\,$)$ $\Psi^r$ maps $[C_a^- \cup

1662: C_b^-] \cap [RPC \cup HPC]$ injectively to $C_b^- \setminus [RPC \cup

1663: HPC]$ and $\Psi^l$ maps $[C_a^+ \cup C_b^+] \cap LPC$ injectively to

1664: $C_b^+ \setminus LPC$.  \\

1665: $($iii\,$)$ $C_c \cap [LPC \cup RPC

1666: \cup HPC] = \emptyset$.  \\

1667: $($iv$)$ $\Psi^r[(C_a^+ \cup C_b^+) \cap (RPC

1668: \cup HPC)]$ and $\Psi^l[(C_a^- \cup C_b^-) \cap LPC]$ are both

1669: disjoint from $C_b$. \\

1670: $($v$)$ $\Psi_{\pm} (C_b)$ is disjoint from

1671: $TPC^o$ for each choice of sign.

1672: \end{lemma}

1673: 

1674: \begin{proof}

1675: (i)

1676: This follows immediately from Lemmas \ref{pg1}.i and \ref{PPi}.

1677: 

1678: (ii) This follows immediately from Lemmas \ref{pg1}.ii, \ref{PPi}, and

1679: \ref{ppp}.

1680: 

1681: (iii) This follows immediately from Lemma \ref{onp}.

1682: 

1683: (iv) This follows immediately from the definition of $SPC$.

1684: 

1685: (v) This follows from Lemma \ref{pg1}.i, since we know $C_b$ is disjoint

1686: from $RC$. \end{proof}

1687: 

1688: \begin{corr} \label{top} $TPC^o$

1689: is partitioned by all sets of

1690: the form: \\

1691: $($a$)$ For $x \in C_a^+ \cup C_c^+$,

1692: \begin{multline} \label{ax1} A_x =\\ \{x, \Psi_+(x)\} \cup

1693: \{ y \mid y = \Psi^l(x) \text{\ or\ } y = \Psi^l \circ \Psi_+ (x) \}

1694: \cup \{ x_p \in RC_+ \mid \Phi'(x_p) = x \},

1695: \end{multline}

1696: $($a'\,$)$ Those of the form \eqref{ax1}, replacing $+$ with $-$

1697: and

1698: $l$ with $r$. (Call these also $A_x$, distinguished from the

1699: above by the ``sign''  of $x$.)  \\

1700: $($b$)$ For a fixed $x \in TPC_{1,1}$, \begin{multline}

1701: \label{ax2} A_x =\\ \{ x \} \cup \{ y \mid y = \Psi^l(x) \text{\

1702: or\ } y =

1703: \Psi^l \circ \Psi^l (x) \} \cup \{x_p \in RC_+ \mid \Phi'(x_p)

1704: = x \}

1705: \end{multline}

1706: $($b'\,$)$ Those of form \eqref{ax2}, replacing $+$ with $-$, $l$

1707: with

1708: $r$, and $TPC_{1,1}$ with $TPC_{1,0}$.

1709: Call these $A_x$ as well.

1710: 

1711: Here it is meant that, if $\Psi^*$ is not defined on $x$, then $y \neq

1712: \Psi^*(x)$ for any $y$.

1713: \end{corr}

1714: 

1715: \begin{proof} For every $x \in C_a^+ \cup C_c^+$, we see from the

1716: Lemma, part (i), that $\Psi_+(x) \in C_b \subset TPC^o$.  Furthermore,

1717: $\Psi^l(x) \in C_b$ and $\Psi^l \circ \Psi_+(x) \in C_b$ where these

1718: are defined (Lemma, part ii). Now take any $y \in C_b^+$.  First note

1719: that either $\Psi_+(\Phi(y)) = y$ or $\Psi^l(\Phi(y)) = y$ because $y

1720: \in SPC_+$.  Note that $\Phi(y) \notin RC$ because

1721: $\Psi_{+}(RC_{+})$ and $\Psi^l(RC_+ \cap LPC)$ are disjoint

1722: from $TPC^o$ (Lemma \ref{rcl}).

1723: Now, if $\Phi(y) \notin C_b$, then using Lemma \ref{ds}, $y \in

1724: A_{\Phi(y)}$ (of type a or b, depending on whether $\Psi_+(\Phi(y)) =

1725: y$ or $\Psi^l(\Phi(y)) = y$, respectively).  If $\Phi(y) \in C_b$,

1726: then clearly $y \in C_b^+$. In this case, $\Phi^2(y) \notin C_b$ by

1727: the Lemma, parts (ii), (iv), and (v), using Lemma \ref{PPi}.

1728: Furthermore, in this case $\Psi^l(\Phi^2(y)) = \Phi(y)$, again from

1729: the Lemma, parts (iv) and (v).  Then, $y \in A_{\Phi^2(y)}$. Thus, we see that

1730: all elements $y \in C_b^+$ fit into at least one of the sets (a) or

1731: (b).  To see that all elements in $C_b^+$ fit into at most one, note

1732: that the way in which $y$ appears is uniquely determined by which of

1733: the following holds: (A) $\Phi(y) \notin C_b$, $y = \Psi_{+} \circ

1734: \Phi(y)$; (B) $\Phi(y) \notin C_b$, $y = \Psi^l \circ \Phi(y)$; (C)

1735: $\Phi(y) \in C_b$, $\Phi(y) = \Psi^l \circ \Phi^2(y)$. Now, it remains

1736: to consider those elements of $RC$.  For any $z \in RC$, we know that

1737: $\Phi'(z) \in TPC^o_{2,2} \cup TPC^o_{2,0} \cup TPC^o_{1,1} \cup

1738: TPC^o_{1,0}$ by Lemma \ref{rcl}.  The former two are subsets of $C_c$,

1739: so we know that $z \in A_{\Phi'(z)}$ for any $z \in RC$, and clearly

1740: $\Phi'(z)$ is unique. The negative case is almost identical to this

1741: one. \end{proof}

1742: 

1743: \begin{defe} For $x \in TPC^o_{n,m}$, set

1744: $E(x) = 1$ if $x_m \in HPTP_l$ or $x_{m+1} \in HPTP_r$ and $0$

1745: otherwise.

1746: %Set $S_{t} = 1$ if

1747: %$t \in TP_+$ and $S_{t} = -1$ if $t \in TP_-$.

1748: Now, given $x=(x_1,

1749: \ldots, x_n) \in TPC^o_{n,m}$, set $P(x) = (-1)^m (q-q^{-1})^n

1750: q^{E(x)} \prod_{i = 1}^n (-q)^{S_{x_i} C_{x_i} (|x_i| - 1)} q^{P^a(x_i)}$.

1751: \end{defe}

1752: 

1753: %\begin{lemma} $J^{-1} R_{st} J^{21} = \sum_{x \in TPC^o} P(x) E_{Q(x)} +

1754: %R_{st}$.

1755: %\label{jrjl}

1756: %\end{lemma}

1757: %

1758: %\begin{proof}  Each term in the expansion of $J^{-1}

1759: %R_{st} J^{21}$ is of the form

1760: %\begin{equation}

1761: %\prod_{i=1}^n E_{x_i} S_{x_i} (q-q^{-1}) (-q)^{-S_{x_i}

1762: %C_{x_i} (|x_i| - 1)} q^{P^a(x_i)},

1763: %\end{equation}

1764: %for $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in TPC^o$,

1765: %except that in the middle there will be a $q\, e_{ii} \o e_{ii}$ factor inside

1766: %iff $x \in HPC$ (otherwise there will be a $e_{ii} \o e_{jj}$ factor

1767: %when $\O(x_{m+1}) \neq 0$, but this does not affect the

1768: %product).  \end{proof}

1769: \begin{lemma} $J^{-1} R_{st} J^{21} = \sum_{x \in TPC^o} P(x) E_{Q(x)}

1770: + \sum_{i \neq j} e_{ii} \o e_{jj} + \sum_i q e_{ii} \o e_{ii}$.

1771: \label{jrjl}

1772: \end{lemma}

1773: 

1774: \begin{proof}  The terms in the expansion of $J^{-1} R_{st} J^{21}$ are

1775: \begin{equation} \label{l219e}

1776: q^{E(x)} \prod_{i=1}^n E_{x_i} S_{x_i} (q-q^{-1}) (-q)^{-S_{x_i}

1777: C_{x_i} (|x_i| - 1)} q^{P^a(x_i)},

1778: \end{equation}

1779: for each $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in TPC^o$, as well as

1780: the terms $e_{ii} \o e_{jj}$ for $i \neq j$ and

1781: $q e_{ii} \o e_{ii}$ for each $i$.

1782: \end{proof}

1783: 

1784: \begin{lemma}\ \label{cop} $($i\,$)$ If $x \in C_a \cup

1785: C_c$, then

1786: $\sum_{y \in A_x} P(y) E_{Q(y)} = 0$. $($ii\,$)$ If $x

1787: =\nolinebreak (x_1)\linebreak

1788: \in TPC_{1,1} \cup TPC_{1,0}$,  then $\sum_{y \in A_x} P(y)

1789: E_{Q(y)} = -S_{x_1} q^{S_{x_1} [  P^s(x_1) +

1790: C_{x_1} (|x_1| - 1)} E_{x_1}$.

1791: \end{lemma}

1792: 

1793: \begin{proof}  (i) Let $x \in C_a^+ \cup C_c^+$. The negative case is 

1794: similar (see comments at the end of the proof of this part).

1795: Let $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in TPC_{n,m}$ and let

1796: \begin{multline}

1797: F =\\ (-1)^{C_{x_{m-1}} (|x_{m-1}| - 1)}\prod_{i =

1798: 1}^{m-2} -(-q)^{C_{x_i}(|x_i|-1)} q^{P^a(x_i)} \prod_{j = m+1}^{n}

1799: (-q)^{C_{x_j}(1 - |x_j|)} q^{P^a(x_j)}

1800: \end{multline}

1801:   be the part of the formula for $P(x)$ which will not change upon

1802: applying $\Psi_+$, $\Psi^l$, and $\Psi'$ (where applicable).

1803: 

1804: Let $B = P(\Psi^l(x))$ if $x \in LPC$ and $B = 0$ otherwise.  Set

1805: $(y_{m-1}, y_{m}) = \psi(x_{m-1}, x_{m})$.  First we show that

1806: \begin{equation} \label{e31}

1807: P(x) + B = q^{C_{x_{m-1}} (|x_{m-1}| - 1) + P^r(x_{m-1}) - P^l(y_{m})} F.

1808: \end{equation}

1809: First, by Lemma \ref{pq},

1810: \begin{equation} \label{xmm1}

1811: P^l(x_{m-1}) = P^l(x_m) + P^r(x_m) + P^l(y_m).

1812: \end{equation}

1813: Hence,

1814: \begin{equation} \label{xma}

1815: P^a(x_{m-1}) + P^a(x_m) = P^r(x_{m-1}) - P^l(y_m) - 2 P^l(x_m).

1816: \end{equation}

1817: If $x \notin LPC$, then $B = 0$ and $P^l(x_m) \in \{0, \frac{1}{2}\}$.

1818: In this case, \eqref{e31} follows from the definition of $E(t)$.

1819: If $x \in LPC$, then $P^l(x_{m}) = 1$, and \eqref{xmm1} implies

1820: $P^r(x_m) = 0$.  Then Lemma \ref{ppp} shows that

1821: $B = (q^2 - 1) P(x)$ so that the left-hand side of \eqref{e31}

1822: is $q^{2 + P^a(x_{m-1}) + P^a(x_m) + C_{x_{m-1}} (|x_{m-1}| - 1)} F$.

1823: By \eqref{xma}, this is the same as the right-hand side.

1824: 

1825: Next, we show that

1826: \begin{equation} \label{e32}

1827: \sum_{\Phi'(y) = x} P(y) = q^{P^r(x_{m-1}) - P^l(y_{m})}

1828: [q^{C_{x_{m-1}} (1 - |x_{m-1}|)} - q^{C_{x_{m-1}} (|x_{m-1}| - 1)}] F.

1829: \end{equation}

1830: Naturally, we may assume that $x_{m-1}$ reverses orientation.  Since,

1831: in this case, $y_m$ also reverses orientation, it must be that $m = n

1832: = 2$.  Suppose now that $x_1 = (e_i - e_j, e_l - e_{i+l-j})$ and $x_2

1833: = (e_j - e_k, e_{i+l-j} - e_{i+l-k})$.  Now, for every $p$ such that

1834: $1 \leq p \leq j-i-1$, set $u_p = (e_i - e_{i+p}, e_l - e_{l-p})$,

1835: $v_p = (e_{i+p} - e_{k+j-i-p}, e_{l-p} - e_{2i+p+l-j-k})$, and $w_p =

1836: (e_{k+j-i-p} - e_k, e_{2i+p+l-j-k} - e_{i+l-k})$.  Then $t_p = (u_p, v_p,

1837: w_p)$ are exactly those reversed chains such that $\Phi'(t_p) = x$.

1838: Now, we consider the possible passing properties of the $T$-pairs

1839: involved.  Note first that, since $\O(u_p) = \O(x_1)$, $P^r(x_1) =

1840: P^r(u_p)$ for all $p$. For the same reason, $P^l(w_p) = P^l(y_2)$ for

1841: all $p$.  Next, note that $P^l(u_p) = 0$ for all $p$---otherwise,

1842: applying $T^{PO^l(u_p)}$ to $x_1$ would contradict nilpotency.  For the

1843: same reason, $P^r(w_p) = 0$ for all $p$.  Next, note that $P^l(v_p) =

1844: P^r(v_p) = 0$ for all $p$. This follows from the fact that $P^l(u_p) =

1845: 0$ for all $p$, making use of Lemma \ref{pq}.  Now, \eqref{e32}

1846: follows readily.

1847: 

1848: Let $D = P(\Psi^l \circ \Psi_+(x))$ when $\Psi_+(x) \in LPC$ and $D = 0$

1849: otherwise.  Finally, we show that

1850: \begin{equation} \label{e33}

1851: P( \Psi_+ (x) ) + D = -q^{C_{x_{m-1}} (1 - |x_{m-1}|) +

1852: P^r(x_{m-1}) - P^l(y_{m})} F.

1853: \end{equation}

1854: The proof is similar to the proof two paragraphs back.  If $\Psi_+(x)

1855: \notin LPC$, then $D = 0$.  By Lemma \ref{pq}, $P^r(x_{m-1}) =

1856: P^r(y_m) + P^r(y_{m-1}) + P^l(y_{m-1})$.  Thus $P^a(y_{m-1}) +

1857: P^a(y_m) + 2 P^l(y_{m-1}) = P^r(x_{m-1}) - P^l(y_m)$, proving

1858: \eqref{e33} in this case (note that $P^l(y_{m-1}) \in

1859: \{0,\frac{1}{2}\}$ and recall the definition of $E(t)$.)  If

1860: $\Psi_+(x) \in LPC$, then $P^l(y_{m-1}) = 1$ and by Lemma \ref{pq} (or

1861: the equation above), $P^r(y_{m-1}) = 0$ and $P^a(y_{m-1}) + P^a(y_m) + 2 =

1862: P^r(x_{m-1}) - P^l(y_m)$.  If we set $\psi^l(y_{m-1}) =

1863: (z_{m-1},z_m)$, then it follows from Lemma \ref{ppp} that neither

1864: $z_{m-1}$ nor $z_m$ is passed, so $P^a(z_{m-1}) = P^a(z_m) = 0$.

1865: Hence, $D = (q^2 - 1) P( \Psi_+ (x) )$, so the left-hand side

1866: of \eqref{e33} is $q^2 P( \Psi_+ (x) ) = -q^{P^a(y_{m-1}) + P^a(y_m) +

1867: 2 + C_{y_{m}} (1 - |y_m|)} F$, which is equal to the right-hand

1868: side by Corollary \ref{psq} and the above analysis.

1869: 

1870: Now, putting \eqref{e31}, \eqref{e32}, and \eqref{e33} together, we

1871: get

1872: \begin{equation}

1873: P(x) + P(\Psi_+(x)) + B + D + \sum_{\Phi'(y) = x} P(y) = 0,

1874: \end{equation}

1875: as desired.

1876: 

1877: The negative case is almost the same as the above, except that the

1878: ``error term'' $E(t)$ over-corrects, but this is counteracted by the

1879: fact that now $\Psi^r$ is defined on $HPC$ as well as $RPC$.  (The

1880: details are omitted.)

1881: 

1882: (ii) This is almost the same as the proof above. First we note that

1883: the result is clear when $x \notin LPC \cup RPC \cup HPC$, as

1884: $A_x = \{x\}$ and $P(x)$ gives the desired formula (bearing in mind the

1885: definition of $E$).  Suppose $x = (x_1) \in

1886: TPC_{1,1} \cap LPC$. Let $B = P(\Psi^l(x))$ and

1887: let $D = P(\Psi^l \circ \Psi^l(x))$ if $x \in LPC$ and $\Psi^l

1888: \in LPC$, and $D = 0$ otherwise.  Let $F = -(-1)^{C_{x_1} (1 - 

1889: |x_1|)} (q-q^{-1})$.

1890: Set $(y_1, y_2) = \psi^l(x_1)$.  First we show that

1891: \begin{equation} \label{e34}

1892: B + D = [ q^{C_{x_1} (1 - |x_{1}|) + P^r(x_1) + 1} - q^{C_{x_1}

1893: (1 - |x_1|) + P^r(x_1) - 1} ] F.

1894: \end{equation}

1895: 

1896: Lemma \ref{ppp} shows that $P^l(y_2) = 0$ and

1897: \begin{equation} \label{ppn}

1898: P^r(x_1) = P^r(y_2) + P^a(y_1) + 2 P^l(y_1).

1899: \end{equation}

1900: First suppose $D = 0$.  In this case, \eqref{ppn} implies \eqref{e34}

1901: easily.  If $D \neq 0$, then $P^r(x_1) = P^l(x_1) = P^l(y_1) = 1$, and

1902: $P^r(y_1) = P^r(y_2) = 0$. Then, $D =

1903: (q - q^{-1})^2 q^{C_{x_1} (1 - |x_1|)} F$.  Furthermore, $B =

1904: (1 - q^{-2}) q^{C_{x_1} (1 - |x_1|)} F$.  From this \eqref{e34} follows.

1905: 

1906: Next, we claim that

1907: \begin{equation} \label{e35}

1908: \sum_{\Phi'(y) = x} P(y) = (q - q^{-1}) q^{P^r(x_1) - P^l(y_2)}

1909: [q^{C_{x_{1}} (|x_1| - 1)} - q^{C_{x_1} (1 - |x_1|)}] F.

1910: \end{equation}

1911: This follows by exactly the same arguments as used in the second

1912: paragraph of the proof of part (i).  But, $P^l(y_2) = 0$, so,

1913: putting \eqref{e34} and \eqref{e35}  together, the result easily follows.

1914: The negative/$TPC_{1,0}$ case is almost the same as this, bearing in

1915: mind the final comments in the proof of the previous part.  \end{proof}

1916: 

1917: {\it Proof of the main theorem, {\rm \ref{mt}}.} This follows

1918: immediately from Lemmas \ref{jrjl} and \ref{cop} and Corollary

1919: \ref{top}, using

1920: \eqref{frge} for $R_{\text{GGS}}$. \qed

1921: 

1922: \section{Acknowledgements}

1923: I would like to thank Pavel Etingof for

1924: introducing me to this problem and advising me.  I would also like to

1925: thank the Harvard College Research Program for their support.

1926: Finally, I am indebted to Gerstenhaber, Giaquinto, and Hodges for

1927: valuable discussions and for sharing some unpublished results.

1928: 

1929: 

1930: \appendix

1931: 

1932: \section{Proof of Proposition \ref{gp}}

1933: 

1934: In this section we explicitly compute $R_{\text{GGS}}$ for generalized

1935: Cremmer-Gervais triples, the only triples satisfying $|\Gamma_1| + 1 =

1936: |\Gamma|$ (omitting only one root), thereby proving Giaquinto's

1937: formula, \eqref{gcgr}, and thus Proposition \ref{gp}.  Recall from

1938: Example \ref{gcge} the results given in \cite{GG}: these triples are

1939: indexed by $(n,m)$ where $n = |\Gamma| + 1$ is the dimension, $m$ is

1940: relatively prime to $n$, $\Gamma_1 = \Gamma \setminus

1941: \{\alpha_{n-m}\}$, $\Gamma_2 = \Gamma \setminus \{\alpha_{m}\}$, and

1942: $T \alpha_i = \alpha_{\Res(i+m)}$, where $\Res$ give the residue mod

1943: $n$ in $\{1,\ldots,n\}$.  Moreover when $s$ is taken to have trace

1944: zero in the first component, it is uniquely given by $s_{ii}^{ii} = 0$

1945: and $s^{ij}_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{n}\Res\bigl(\frac{j-i}{m})$

1946: where $i

1947: \neq j$. Then, the only difficulty is in computing $q^{s} \tilde a

1948: q^{s}$, so here we use \eqref{frge} to prove \eqref{gcgr}.

1949: 

1950: Clearly we have

1951: \begin{equation}

1952: q^s \tilde a q^s = \sum_{x \in TP_+}

1953:    q^{-P^s(x)+r(x)} E_{x}^{21} - q^{P^s(x)-r(x)} E_{x},

1954: \end{equation}

1955: where $r(e_k - e_{i+k-j}, e_i - e_j) = s_{j,i+k-j}^{j,i+k-j} +

1956: s_{i,k}^{i,k}$, for $j < i$, since $C_x = 0$ for all $x$.  It

1957: suffices, then, to show $P^s(x) - r(x) = \frac{2\O(x)}{n}$

1958: for all $x$.  Take $x = (e_k - e_{i+k-j}, e_i - e_j)$.  Below we

1959: use the notation $[\text{statement}] = 1$ if ``statement'' is true and

1960: 0 if it is false.

1961: 

1962: One sees that

1963: \begin{multline}

1964: s_{j,i+k-j}^{j,i+k-j} + s_{i,k}^{i,k} = 1 - \frac{1}{2}[2j =

1965: i+k] - \frac{1}{2}[i = k] -

1966: \\ \frac{1}{n}\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{i+k-2j}{m}\bigr) -

1967: \frac{1}{n}\text{Res} \bigl(\frac{k-i}{m}\bigr) \\ = 1 -

1968: \frac{1}{2}[2j = i+k] - \frac{1}{2}[i = k] - \frac{2}{n}

1969: \text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) + M_{i,j,k},

1970: \end{multline}

1971: where

1972: \begin{multline}

1973: M_{i,j,k} = [2j \neq i+k][\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) >

1974: \text{Res}\bigl(\frac{i+k-2j}{m})] \\

1975: - [i \neq k][\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) <

1976: \text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-i}{m}\bigr)].

1977: \end{multline}

1978:   Thus, since $\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) = \O(x)$, it

1979: suffices to show $\frac{1}{2}[2j = i+k] + \frac{1}{2}[i = k] + P^r(x)

1980: + P^l(x) = 1 + M_{i,j,k}$.  Note that $i = k$ iff $x \in HPTP^r$ and

1981: $2j = i + k$ iff $x \in HPTP^l$, and in these cases $M_{i,j,k} = 0$,

1982: so it suffices to consider $x \notin HPTP$.  In this case we need to

1983: show $1 + M_{i,j,k} = P^r(x) + P^l(x)$.  Now,

1984: \begin{multline}

1985: 1+M_{i,j,k} =\\ [\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) >

1986: \text{Res}\bigl(\frac{i+k-2j}{m})] +

1987: [\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) >

1988: \text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-i}{m}\bigr)],

1989: \end{multline}

1990: and it is not difficult to see that $[\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) >

1991: \text{Res}\bigl(\frac{i+k-2j}{m})] = P^l(x)$ while

1992: $[\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) >

1993: \text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-i}{m}\bigr)] = P^r(x)$.  This finishes the proof.

1994: \qed

1995: 

1996: \begin{thebibliography}{CGS}

1997: 

1998: \bibitem[BD]{BD}A. A. Belavin  and V. G. Drinfeld, {\it Triangle

1999: equations and simple Lie algebras}, Soviet

2000: Sci. Rev. Sect. C: { Math. Phys. Rev.} {\bf 4} (1984), 93--165.

2001: 

2002: \bibitem[ESS]{ESS}P. Etingof, T. Schedler, and O. Schiffmann,

2003: {\it Quantization of dynamical $r$-matrices}, to appear.

2004: 

2005: \bibitem[GG]{GG} M. Gerstenhaber and A. Giaquinto, {\it Boundary

2006: solutions of the classical Yang-Baxter equation}, { Lett. Math.

2007: Phys.} {\bf 40} (1997), 337--353.

2008: 

2009: \bibitem[GGS]{GGS}M. Gerstenhaber and A. Giaquinto, and S. D.

2010: Schack, {\it Construction of quantum groups from Belavin-Drinfeld

2011: infinitesimals},  % Joseph, A. and Shnider, S., ed. {\it Quantum

2012: %Deformations of Algebras and  their Representations,}

2013: %(Ramat-Gan, 1991/1992; Rehovat, 1991/1992)}, 45--64,

2014:    Israel Math. Conf. Proc. {\bf 7} (1993), 45--64.

2015: %{\it Bar-Ilan Univ., Ramat Gan, 1993.}

2016: 

2017: \bibitem[GH]{GH} A. Giaquinto and T. J. Hodges, {\it Nonstandard

2018: solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation}, { Lett.  Math. Phys.}

2019: {\bf 44} (1998), 67--75.

2020: 

2021: \bibitem[H]{H} T. J. Hodges, {\it Nonstandard quantum groups

2022: associated to certain Belavin-Drinfeld triples}, {\ Contemp. Math.}

2023: {\bf 214} (1998), 63--70.

2024: 

2025: \bibitem[H2]{H2} \bysame,  {\it The Cremmer-Gervais solutions of

2026: the Yang-Baxter equation}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. {\bf 127} (1999),

2027:   1819--1826, {\tt q-alg/9712036}.

2028: 

2029: \bibitem[S]{S} T. Schedler, {\it Verification of the GGS

2030: conjecture for

2031: $\mathfrak{sl}(n)$, $n \leq 12$},  {\tt math.QA/9901079.}

2032: 

2033: \bibitem[S2]{S2} \bysame , {\it On the GGS conjecture},

2034: {\tt math.QA/003079}.

2035: 

2036: \end{thebibliography}

2037: %\end{singlespace}

2038: % LocalWords:  Belavin Drinfeld CYBE Gerstenhaber Giaquinto QYBE Jimbo Cremmer

2039: % LocalWords:  Schack Hecke GGS nonunitary symmetrize Dynkin Gervais Casimir jl

2040: 

2041: % LocalWords:  automorphism ik ij kl jj ji iff misprints quasitriangular Hopf

2042: % LocalWords:  quasitrangular jprod jiprod fk bk nilpotency ae fe subtriple xy

2043: % LocalWords:  ab cgrj icg il lj subalgebra subdiagram commutators nonsimple tr

2044: % LocalWords:  nondegenerate counit subalgebras semigroup quasiclassical Pavel

2045: \end{document}

2046: 

2047: 

2048: % LocalWords:  Acknowledgements Etingof Schiffmann ESS monomials componentwise

2049: % LocalWords:  CTQ TP GCTQ positivity HPTP PTP injectively mrlart eps hrge sg

2050: % LocalWords:  minimality

2051: 

2052: